Skip to main content

About this Show

U.S. Senate





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 91 (627 MHz)






United States 42, U.s. 35, America 32, Us 30, North Dakota 22, Washington 18, Colorado 11, Pennsylvania 11, Norton 9, Syria 8, Schafer 7, New York 7, Virginia 7, Nasa 7, Obama 6, Mars 6, Epa 5, Hagel 5, Brazil 5, California 5,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    U.S. Senate    News/Business.  

    January 9, 2013
    12:00 - 5:00pm EST  

communications industry which learned how to succeed in business and in politics. and it is by telling the masses what is wrong with business, what is wrong with politics. and to demand an immediate fix. so that is what kind of controls our country these days is communication. that's good. it brings us all closer together. but it also has a way of setting our look at the world of business politics. >> the next question is from space cappone who asks what is your opinion of the private sector travel. >> i think the head of space-x is a very ambitious talented
south african, a person that made a lot of money on a pay pal and has turned that into forming an organization carefully selecting people from other companies and selecting some designs that are quite basic. i went to visit him recently because over the last at least ten, 20 years i fancied myself a pretty good person of the ways of getting to mars and why we probably shouldn't spend the money to put government people back on the moon to be greeted by the chinese. now we are second to the chinese coming and once the government starts a program, we know how
hard it is to turn loose with it to establish a colony on the moon when you can always bring it back doesn't give us leadership. we do things like that 50 years ago. we shouldn't pioneer alfred in the solar system and mars is the most likely, the most livable place much more than the moon. the moon is good because we are close to it and it's relatively easy to get there and quite easy to get back. so you can locate people. you don't talk about a settlement really at the moon, but more and more people that i know that are aware of the economics, aware of history and what this country needs will agree with me that if you go to
mars, you go there for permanency. if you go once and come back, go twice and come back i can tell you the senate will find out some other way to spend that money and we will have wasted everything we did. it's a government, conagra's that works on short term objectives to help keep their constituents satisfied by bringing home the bacon to get elected. [inaudible] [laughter] >> from the lead to president kennedy played a role in developing nasa and the space program. where were you when you heard the news and what was your impression of his leadership? >> i was at mit, and i thought
there's a very positive statement. after i knew what the mercury program had been set as objectives. in april of 611th, what could we do? may 5th ellen shepherd went up and down. several like richard branson's project. it wasn't a flight. 20 days later, the president said we should go to the moon within this decade. a lot of people thought that was in possible. how could we do that? nobody had been in orbit yet in
the united states. what kind of rockets are we going to build to be given to do it, and what is the main principle? he was going to build a big spacecraft but we didn't have a rocket to go in. we needed to lift the spacecraft that would do everything. take people up, go to the orbit, land, a comeback and then back into the ocean again. it was a monster. so he needed a rocket for the 1970's. so we had one to carry the injection and the other to carry the big spacecraft until somebody said we met. if we look at what we want to do, which is to get a man on the moon and bring him back, let's look at the settlements of this instead of a spacecraft to do
everything. >> 100 years from now -- i'm just throwing a question and i will go back to this -- that you touched on something hundred, 200 years from now or we going to look back at the space program and say how primitive. in the 200 years, where to go from here from new york come to london, how advanced is this thing going to get? >> time will tell on the marketplace and the leadership and the politics. do we want to lead the world or do we want to follow? it's my hope that we want to lead, and i don't think that we will do that by sending nasa astronauts back to the moon again. by the time they get there it will be 50 years since we did that in the last century. is that the kind of progress that we should be making? or should we be reaching out?
now, i have developed in the last several years a very strong leadership position that the u.s. should take. we should build the infrastructure. we should assemble the elements of other countries on the surface from a satellite that we are planning now to go to that is on the far side of the moon that can be the robotic science can do the mining for the ice crystals and convert that into hydrogen and oxygen which is fuel the conference recently as following a workshop that has been sent out in the international learning basis by practicing on the island of hawaii to assemble a large
number of large objects. you put the first one down and where are they expected? another one down at some distance away how do you put them together? if it's on hawaii, you do that through a satellite back to the mission control. so you prove that you can do something like that here in the united states. then we do it at the moon. why am i so enthusiastic about that? because that's exactly what we want to do at mars. we want to put people on the moon of mars who can then assemble the base we will then send people and we should assure ourselves we should protect crew members from radiation as much as possible before they ever go somewhere and that's the moon, too. >> kevin has a two-part question and i should ask the second part
first. do you believe an extra terrestrial life? >> i hope so. >> are we presumptuous not to think we are the only ones here? >> no, i don't think so. but intelligence in my science fiction story coming tv episodes, it's a pretty good story. but there probably isn't a big planet in the moon. i think that we have found that out by now. somebody has to be first. somebody has to be leading the pack. life came on this plan at a relatively progressive passion out of the oceans and on to the
land. these characteristics work existed in other places. they are going to be much harsh conditions on 99.5% of the places that could have life, but there are so many billions of stars in our galaxy and so many billions of galaxies. if we find some life somewhere, chances are it's going to be so far away with that we may detected presence long after they've done anything because information flows at the speed of light. >> that's fascinating. also if you can describe your feelings when you first walked on the moon. >> magnificent. it was wonderful. he talked about a human being giving a great honor to do this
and how it was a small human step, but consider the magnitude of human beings evolving on earth, going through all the trauma and looking up at the moon for centuries and centuries and we get a chance to walk on it. that is a giant leap. just think how giant it will be when human beings from the planet earth set up permanents come a settlement on another plant at -- planet in the solar system. the leader in the nation that connects to do that is going to be remembered tens, hundreds of thousands of years in the future, in the history of our solar system and the pioneers that go there are going to be
written about stories. people will jump at the chance to be among those pioneers. estimate that is a good segue fer don wagners question. we haven't been back to the moon since '72. it's cheaper and less risky to continue recall exploring a robot ackley . is there still a room for manned exploration? >> not until long ago there were robots on opposite sides of the moon. spirit and opportunity. they were supposed to last 90 days. they lasted over five years until one of them gave up and the other one is still going. steve squire's from cornell said put it in writing that what those to have done in the past five years could have been done in one week if we have human
intelligence. we are in a second time delay to control those robots. that's what i'm proposing. we go to the moon of mars so we control those robots. just like we do not from the earth's surface of the earth but recently announced a stable point on the far side of the moon so that we can look at the south pole where there are traders that hold a lot of shadows. it's very cold, there or ice crystals, and that's where the u.s. wants to establish a base on the moon. if we forget about the moon and don't go there with anything, do you think that will happen? no because china will decide where the base is going to be. we know more about the moon than
any other country. we've been there. why should we turn over leadership? and it's going to take a strong leader to the search that we will build the infrastructure to help other people. we should put the first habitation not for people to go there but so that we can learn how to bury a and then cover it with radiation protection and then put some other inflatable that they are building up in las vegas. he wants to put those as commercial activity. we really need to bring it together, commercial activities and government activities better than we have done in the past. >> thank you. jerry asks you how will they send a man to mars?
>> back in 1985, i was trying to come up with a better way to go to the moon by something that would swing by the moon and then come back and keep going and not stop, but just keep visiting the moon and the earth. it doesn't turn out that is to practical of the purpose is to land somebody. but if your purpose is to take a tourist fly in by the moon it still is a good idea, but it doesn't fall into favor with nasa in 1985. so we went to the moon and said why don't you look at mars? some people have been doing some ratio orbits and it took five or six different spacecraft in order to give you something that was beginning to look practical. well, i looked at doing that and
i cannot with one or bit that cycles from earth and swings by mars, comes back to earth and keeps doing the same thing. they are called aldrin or but's. it's not the best, but it begins to apply all in a method that has been devolved into every other opportunity we have good cyclists with the speed of approach by earth and mars are very low. there are lots of advantages to having to rather than one. not perdue university and buzz aldrin has kind of publicized these things. and it establishes a transportation system into the future. not just once now you have to build a series of spacecraft. it goes off when you get there.
does nasa think that is a good idea since 1985? not yet. >> a recent graduate and a discouraged job-seekers the question is you have so many successors. what is an important failure or set back that has impacted you and lead to your future success? >> i have to mistakes that i've made to read the worst one is before i left nasa i went down to look at the next program after and they had progressed quite a way on that and it was two states that work reusable. a booster that would fly back and land and in orbit on top that we would come back and land on the runway. the two stages that more usable.
we would love to have that today but i'm talking about 1970. you know why we didn't get it? because one center wanted to put the crew in the booster to come back and land. there were seven teams bidding on this and i said what is this for? we have a crew in the booster to fly back. if something goes wrong you separate where the people are and you blow up the booster. right? you can't do it if you have a crew in there. do you know how long that lasted? another half a year or so. a lot of money and a lot of time went into that and we had to piece together a space shuttle that was going to fly 40 or 50 missions a year. you know how many we flew?
the maximum, mind. usually six missions. and we've retired them now and they have flown 30, maybe 45 missions. they were designed for a hundred missions but they were big and unsafe and they killed two of the cruise. >> did with neil know that he was going to see the famous one small step for mankind or was it a spur of the moment thing? >> somewhere between the two. [laughter] he didn't tell mike collins or me. he said something to the effect if we land successfully i will think of something. but that's neil. >> they didn't put that in there. ischemic but if it was impromptu, that was quick
thinking. mick roberts asks you is it true that you received a corvette when he got back from the moon and do you still have it? [laughter] >> there was an old crew on the pilot 12 and all of them had a golden corvettes. there was a race car driver that ran a chevrolet cadillac car place in milbourne florida and he was a friend of the astronaut. there's something in general motors call the brass hat deal where they are able to let people drive a car for publicity. what better publicity than lending and astor not drive a corvette to this guy because he wants to put it on ebay. i think this is -- >> mercedes. not mine.
>> how many models are on that? >> there are 70,000 miles. 60 convertibles. >> have you looked at all on the web space telescope what you think about the mission? >> it is a pioneering information gathering of the cosmos like the hubble telescope was. it will give many new pieces of information the will give us a better understanding of the origin of the galaxy in of the entire universe. it's not close to the earth. it's going to be at a considerable distance away. and going back to service it
will not be easy. it has overrun its budget. it has taken a lot of money away from many of their programs. but once you begin to make an investment on something, do you cancel without? sometimes you do. sometimes you have to. i can think of one that deserves canceling right now. it's called the senate system. [applause] mandated by the senate in hall and says it will be made as a heritage component. you know what that means old stuff, things we have been working on so we don't have to build a new program and new jobs and maybe lose an election. >> we have time for a couple
last quick questions. am i the relationship between you, neil and michael collins. it seems to be that he's the forgotten one as the third member of apollo 11. what was it like between you folks? >> there is a rotation of the crew based on where you get into the first flight and that an upcoming flight you have the prime crew and a backup assigned so the back up on this flight skips to and then becomes the prime. that sort of the starting way of rotating the crew and how you get into that and get started is
quite a variable. you might lose the crew in st. louis and bring that in new back ground crew. that shuffles things around with our planning to get to the moon before the end of the decade we have to take some hurried steps and sending the crew on the second spacecraft of apollo who the first time we launched the crew, we send them to the moon on the apollo eight because we thought maybe the soviets were going to take one flossy around the moon and come back and land. because they had done this and that's why if we advanced apollo eight. as it turned out because of the changes in the missions, they
wouldn't be ready. neil and i were on the backup crew. and we helped the crew, bill andrews and jim, we helped them out and we've really worked together as a team. mike collins had an operation said he was a communicator, he wasn't on apollo but we have him join us because there was shifting around. and after apollo came back, leaning from genesis during christmas of 1968, when they came back in mid january, our crew was announced as the potential first landing if the next five to missions did what
they needed to do. we had to check it in the earth's orbit first in apollo number nine and then in a dress rehearsal but not in a landing. and if that went okay -- now as soon as they announced the crew, guess what the questions from the press are. who's going to land on the moon, who is going to be out first? this didn't help the morale. what's he going to say, who is going to coach him? >> there wasn't the loss of privacy that there is going to be in the future when he have cameras all over the place looking over to see what the crew is doing every minute of their mission.
i hate to see that day come because i kind of like my privacy and so do other people. they like to be able to say what they want to and do what they want. >> finally, john dillinger i think that he says he is 97 but she asked why did you retire from nasa? >> when we finished our work we were invited to the white house. we had a dinner and the president asked the three of us what we wanted to do. she said i know you've been talking to secretary rogers in the state department and mike wanted to work with the state department and some of its contacts with other nations pure
also designed the center in washington, a very competent job, very well done. neil wanted to serve and aeronautics and i wanted to go back to the service i had come from, the air force. as it turned out i was the first astronaut to ever go back to active duty and i felt my experience at west point been at the air force academy for the first year when it opened up and was indeed to the team of the faculty there would be a good deutsch up to the cadets as a role model. that isn't what happened. for those of you that might be familiar with the names of people, i have a classmate whose last name was vandenberg.
he got the job because his father had been chief of staff at the air force, so she went to the air force academy. where are we going to send aldrin? well, we have an opening of the test pilot school. we know he was never, but that's okay. we will send him after he 11 years away from the military, we will send him back to command to command the test pilot school. i did the best job i could. i felt good with how i dealt with the students. but it was not what i was looking for. and was a disappointment when it became clear in the set of circumstances to retire which i did. >> in closing is there any
thought he want to leave this audience with whether it is your career, nasa, the advancing of the stars; what are you going to leave us with this evening, sir? >> i tried to accept invitations to come along and do things. that's why i'm here. to try to explain to you through sessions the burning issues that i see in our space program. it is leadership and its exceptional was some, and it isn't doing what we have done already just because it is easier may be and we can fund things and get a payback quicker to get all interested in leadership at the moon, but not going back and spending a lot of money doing what we did already when robots can do that just as
well. and we can help the foreign countries that want to do that, and then we can lead the world. we can. we really can. will we do that? i work on it as long as i fear there is a chance. but after awhile, you can't keep working on something that just isn't going to happen. because of short term objective people, mostly politicians. [applause] ..
>> spokesman jay carney will brief reporters at 1:45 p.m. eastern and you can see a live right here on c-span2. state governors are offering the state of the state addresses this time of year, and c-span brings you several of them today. live from the state capital of albany, it's new york governor andrew cuomo in his state of the state address. it should last about an hour and we will open our phone lines afterwards to get your reaction. later at 7 p.m. we'll go live to richmond, virginia, for a state of the commonwealth speech. life state of the state speeches throughout the day on c-span.
this year marks the 100th anniversary of richard nixon's birth. join us tonight for event marking the occasion. lives on c-span2. it gets under way at 8:30 p.m. eastern. >> if you ask how many, people who described them as libertarians, depending on which poll you might getting between 10 and 18%. if you ask questions like if you give people a battery of questions about different ideological things can if you believe in x., do you believe and why, you track those two different ideologies and say to been a witch voyeur looking at you get up to maybe 30% of americans calling themselves libertarians. if you ask the following question, are you economic conservative but socially liberal you get over half americans call themselves saying that's what they are. that said, just because people say these things it doesn't mean they really believe them. if you ask most americans do you want smaller government, they say yes. if you say you want government to spend less money they say
yes. if you ask them to do any particular item on the budget you want to get anything. it's not clear if they really believe in it. based on the best data i have when writing this book i have to say roughly somewhere as lost 10% and as high as 30%. so libertarians, if they were kind of conscience and political, they could be a big movement. it could be a big group of people who have a shared ideology to have a lot of influence in politics, but just for various reasons they are not organized that way right now. >> offer jason brennan on what you might not know sunday night at eight on c-span's q&a. >> american petroleum institute president jack gerard says energy is fundamental to america's future, and more domestic production only translates into more economic growth, jobs and government revenue. his comments came during the apis annual state of energy address tuesday here in
washington, d.c. after his remarks mr. gerard took part in a q&a session with the audience and members of the press. this is about an hour 18 minutes. >> thank you, marty, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for being here today. we are honored by your presence, and greatly appreciate your participation. happy new year to each one of you. and i look around the room, i see a number of distinguished guests. in washington everyone is distinguished, as we all know, and we would like to take the time to introduce everyone. however, in the interest of time we can do that today. though knowing as i look at many of you here today, knowing that many of you have a key role in the energy policy debate, and hopefully what might happen over the next year or two as we consider the truly game changing opportunity we have here in the united states, as it relates to energy, and specifically from our vantage point the oil and natural gas industry. before i proceed and share some
remarks with you i would like to introduce our head table here today. i would like to begin with a new, great cheerleader of energy that's come to the united states senate from the state of north dakota, senator heitkamp. senator, would you stand, please. [applause] as i thought about senator heitkamp's addition to the senate, i think i finally found someone who is a bigger cheerleader from north dakota than i am. fancy you, senator. thank you very much. we look forward to working with you. she is truly an expert in the oil of area management in the area of oil and natural gas, not only comes from the number two oil producer in the united states today of north dakota, she's also been attacks commission and state attorney general. let me quickly go around and introduced some others. walter, would you please stand. walter is the general president of the iron workers union.
is part of our labor-management group at the api. let me skip over top and introduced doug. would you please stand. doug is the president of the united brotherhood of carpenters. we work closely with organized labor at the api. we have 15 unions now. we are working closely together in job creation and economic recovery. doug and walt, thank you very much for being here today. we appreciate it. [applause] to other good friends, dot, would you please stand? dot is director of the office of economic impact and diversity of the department of energy, and we work with dot as well as esther. esther, would you please stand. the executive director the congressional has been a caucus institute and and a part of my remarks in a moment i will share with you a recent study we've concluded that shows the impact of the oil and gas industry from the minority community and the great and if it's we can provide
as we watch the changing demographic of the country. so esther and dot, thank you for being here today. [applause] groove before i turn to january jones let me introduce three of my college. tom, american iron and steel institute. [applause] kowal at the american chemistry council. [applause] and dave, the american gas association. [applause] all presidents and ceos of the respective responsibilities as you all know, each have had public service. dave from this debacle the. cal from the state of california and tom in the administration's epa. keenly involved particularly from a manufacturing perspective and insight of oil and natural gas. and last but certainly not least, our friend general jim jones. general, would you please stand. [applause] i think many of you know the general well. he probably needs no
introduction, a former national security advisor to the president. a very distinguished career in military service throughout the world. and today, has a consulting group that also works with a bipartisan policy center which will be releasing next month i believe a significant contribution to the energy debate. so let's give everyone a round of applause, particularly our head table today, for being here among us. [applause] with the newly elected congress and administration that has now started its second term, we stand on the threshold of a new year. one that presents tremendous opportunities to move forward to build our economy and to create the jobs for those americans who are still looking for work here the oil and natural gas industry has been a bright spot over the last few years of sluggish economic growth, and listless job creation. and let me say we are ready to
do even more. we have a vision of our country's future that is built on the incredible potential our industry offers this poor more economic growth, and help other industries, particularly the manufacturing sectors represented from those we have introduced today. and greater economic growth comes greater opportunity, for workers, particularly those are trying to find a first job, for americans are looking for a new, forward-looking approach that embraces innovation, imaginati imagination, consensus resolve, and a focus on things that work. energy is fundamental to our nations economy. the united states, oil and natural gas supplies most of the energy that we consume to run our lives, our businesses, transport our goods, to heat our
homes, and to move our families throughout the day. there is no question that we will need more energy to meet the needs of an expanding economy than to provide for the growing population years ahead. oil and natural gas industry will be a vital part of that economic growth. and even as we expand in using more renewable energy, and even improve the energy efficiencies we have today. we need more energy of all types to meet the rising demand of a vibrant country. and we can produce much more of that energy right here at home. u.s. oil and gas industry is fundamental to our countries future. through its investments in energy exploration, investments in infrastructure to safely and responsibly produced, refine and transport product, to provide the energy that we need. through its investmeninvestmen ts in people, jobs and
communities, and its investments in fuels and innovative technologies. more domestic energy development equals economic growth, job creation, government revenue, and energy security. "usa today" recently looked at how oil and natural gas development was impacting small town america, perhaps some of those communities that senator heitkamp represents. it's fascinating where they concluded that income in quote small town america end quote was up over 3.8% since 2007. and energy foundation wrote in our employment picture was also evident at the department of labor's most recent jobs report when it reported that oil and natural gas extraction employment is up 6.5% over the past year. these jobs were created through a resurgence in domestic
resources, which can change our energy and economic future. study after study has shown that we are a we source rich nation, with a fast energy assets, oath oil, natural gas, along with others. and we have the world's leading refining capability to deliver the fuels and products america's businesses and families need. u.s. oil and natural gas companies are truly investing in america's future. with the development, production and refining of oil and natural gas, and in doing so, are opening new opportunities for our economy. in 2011, the united states ranked 159th in the world in terms of gdp growth. and lackluster economic growth attracted a lot of attention
during the last congressional and presidential debates. somewhat overlooked though was our country's number one ranking and natural gas production. "the wall street journal" reported our number one ranking was at least partly to the luck of geology. that we have vast resources right here in the u.s. but also to our country's commitment to private investme investment, and the ability for those investors who are willing to take risks with the hope and expect nation of achieving a reward. and it's not just in natural gas. the industry producing record amounts of oil today, as many of you know again back to north dakota, the number two oil production in the states, has now surpassed california and alaska to rise to the great achievement. as well as a refining sector that is the leader in the world. these are the kinds of investments oil and natural gas companies are considering, and
which may provide a substantial economic stimulus to our economy every year. in 2011, the industry investments, or stimulus if you will, totaled $545 billion in capital investment, wages, and dividends paid. think of it. every two years the oil and natural gas industry provides a stimulus of over $1 trillion to our domestic economy. those investments continued each year driving job creation and higher economic activity. this energy stimulus is providing returns all across our country. oil and natural gas industry investments directly and indirectly support more than a trillion dollars in economic activity. in a recent ihs global insight study said, that lower natural
gas prices as a result of this production were lowering our manufacturing costs as well as heating and electricity prices by as much as 10%. this means lower costs for manufacturers and other segments of our economy, and lower prices on chemicals, feedstocks based on natural gas and refined products, such as those used in plastics, medicines, agriculture, such as fertilizers. about one-third of all the energy produced in the united states is consumed and used by our manufacturers to produce and to shift products that are vital to our way of life. the abundant and affordable supplies of energy from shale, both natural gas and oil, are driving job creation and economic growth clear across the country. consumers are benefiting from these lower energy costs brought about by the growth in production, specifically of
natural gas. ihs global insight estimates american households will save on average $1000 a year through 2012-2015, through lower seating in electricity costs. it went on to conclude that savings could rise for more than $2000 per year per household by 2035. producing more domestic energy provides opportunities for the u.s. to increase the exports to serve new markets. the recent economic consulting study from the department of energy concludes the next report that lng is a net benefit in all scenarios evaluated, and that more exports increased those benefits. just a few years ago, as we all know, we were considering lng terminals to import natural gas to the united states.
what a difference just a few short years make. by developing new techno cheese to ask a potential new sources like oil shale, which often goes -- we will be able to dramatically increase our energy potential and roll as the global energy leader. oil shale in the western united states today is estimated at 800 billion barrels, which is nearly three times the proven oil reserve of saudi arabia. as the numbers clearly show, we in the industry are investing in america's future. and we will be sharing what that means in a new campaign we are launching over the next few weeks which will focus on raising understanding of the unique and foundational role of the u.s. oil and natural gas industry, and what it means to our economy. what it means for our communities and for america's
lives, for government revenue, for refining, and what it means ultimately to job creation and economic recovery. oil and natural gas companies today support 9.2 million american jobs, and could easily support an additional 1.4 million jobs by 2030 with industries investment in energy production and refining. infrastructure investments create new construction jobs almost immediately, while providing job creation benefits for many years to come. consider, for example, the keystone xl pipeline, a pipeline that many are keenly interested in, which would immediately create 20,000 jobs, but the development with the canadian oil sands for many years yet t too, to support hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next few decades. the new analysis by ihs
demonstrates the benefits of jobs from a we typically call the unconventional oil and natural gas development are not limited to the typical oil and natural gas states. over the past decade more than 30 states have seen at least a 50% rise in industry support of deployment. from i.t. to accounting, the software development to machines and equipment, companies and workers in every state are supporting the development of the u.s. oil and natural gas industry. and thousands of workers in almost every state are part of this vast network of u.s. companies supporting the development of canadian oil sands. a recent survey shows the keystone xl pipeline alone created employment and activity in 49 of our 50 states. hawaii, unfortunately, could not
find activity. for those of you would like to volunteer to help us pursue that further, please let us know after our comments today. the u.s. refining industry alone supports more than 500,000 american jobs, with an average income of $95,000 per employee, and supports nearly 2% of our gross domestic product. in 2011, china unfortunately surpassed the united states as the world's number one manufacturer, but we can reclaim that spot if we enjoy our own energy revolution continues to gather strength. manufacturing can and is returning to the united states. shale, dow chemical as represented by cal, u.s. steel as represented by tom, and many others, have announced or are
considering moving manufacturing back to the u.s., or planning expansions here at home for the first time in many years. these decisions are driven by the availability of reliable and affordable energy. and by the knowledge that we have a skilled and productive workforce right here at home. the oil and natural gas industry offers tremendous employment opportunities to meet the changing demographics. for the african-american community and the latino workers. the issues we've been working on over at the department of energy. the recent ihs study projected that with pro-development policies, 166,000 new jobs, created just in our upstream sector of the industry by 2020 could be held by minority workers. and more than 285,000 new jobs
by 2030. job creation continues to be a key priority for policymakers. for our industry and for the millions of americans who are still looking for work. with up to half of our oil and gas industries technical personnel, turning over over the next seven to 10 years, our industry provides them an important opportunity to address the challenge of high unemployment. but a key part of that solution, as we all well know, is government policy. that enabled the increase of domestic energy production to continue on, and maintains a strong domestic refining sector, rather than discouraging it. u.s. oil and natural gas companies are providing more than jobs in more than economic growth, in areas that we often overlook that we don't think about. for example, the success of this
industry means enhancing our energy security, our economic security, and our national security. millions of americans gain retirement security to shares of oil and natural gas companies held in retirement savings, 401(k) plans, and pension plans. a study of the largest public employee pension plans, we are talking here now about school teachers, firefighters, policemen, a study of these plans in 17 states showed that oil and natural gas stocks, which on average, made up less than 5% of the fund holdings, contributed as much as 15% to the fund's total gains between 2005-2009. a similar look at colleges and universities found more good news. u.s. shares of oil and natural gas company stock boosted the overall performance of public
and private university endowments, outperforming every other asset class examined. the 11.5% return between 2001 2001-2011 was 326% higher than the average annual 10 year return on all u.s. stocks. this leads to financial security, family security for all americans. this industry is also among the largest sources of revenue to the government, providing broader financial security for our nation as a whole. as the governments lease sale in the gulf of mexico from 2012 illustrates, tremendous revenues flow to government through lease sales, royalty and bonuses. today, the oil and natural gas industry contributes $86 million a day to the federal government.
the 1.8 billion that was raised through the federal we still offshore in 2012 could significantly increase if the more than 80% of the offshore areas that are currently unavailable were made available for production. energy access, not taxes, is the key to unlocking new revenue for the government. energy analysts found that more than 800 billion additional dollars could be generated through 2030 through access to areas off limits and other pro-development policies. there's a new energy reality for the united states, our reality of vast domestic resources of oil and natural gas. the reality is that our energy supply is no longer limited, no longer foreign, and no longer finite. but is now american and abundant, greatly enhancing our
national security. we have a game changing opportunity to make the u.s. the global leader in energy. if we seize the opportunity now, we will be positioned to lead for decades, and realize the economic and energy security benefits of that leadership. the world is watching. our decision will impact regions around the world, middle east and europe, asia, and elsewhere. we were encouraged by president obama's 2012 campaign comments supporting and all of the above agenda on energy. and his statements outlining specific support for oil and natural gas production. we need more energy of all typ types. even if we dramatically expand renewable energy sources and increase our energy efficiency,
fossil fuels will continue to have an important role to play. that only does natural gas have been increasingly important role in electricity generation, it provides the raw materials needed to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels. it is essential as a backup our do intermittent electricity sources. a future of abundant domestic energy is already being made real through today's oil and natural gas industry investmen investments. in cutting-edge technologies to access resources, previously thought unreachable. with unconventional resources to expected to produce the majority of america's energy, we may soon be calling them the very conventional. shale energy development has been a game changer for years in the economy, and even our environment. as increased use of natural gas has reduced co2 emissions in the
united states in 1992 levels. since 1990, the industry has invested more than $252 billion in improving the environmental performance of our products, our facilities, and our operations. between 2000-2010, the amount of industry investment for technologies to reduce greenhouse gases was $71 billion. compare that to the $43 billion spent by the federal government over that same time. compared to all other industries combined, which were just slightly larger than what our industry invested. u.s. refiners have invested more than $137 billion since 1990 in technologies to produce even cleaner fuels and meet the growing variety of state and federal mandates.
it complete transitions compared to gasoline is estimated to have resulted in the reduction of tailpipe emissions by cars and light duty trucks, the equivalent of taking 164 million cars off the road. and through increased efficiency, we are doing much more with less. america uses about half as much energy today to produce 1 dollar of gdp than it did in 1970. america's oil and natural gas industry has a unique and foundational role in our country. providing the fuels that power our economy, creating jobs and supporting our national interest, through the industry's investing in america's future. this is a uniquely american movement. private investment and domestic
oil and natural gas, and the technologies to access those reserves has brought us to a turning point that is unmatched anywhere in the world. not because they don't have oil and natural gas, but because we have brought our entrepreneurial spirit to the energy discussion to take a chance on new wells, new techniques, and new technology that provides the energy that supports our way of life. we are at the crossroads of a great turning point in our nation's history, to realign the energy access towards the west and into our own control. north america can become self-sufficient in liquid fuels in 12 short years. and as a potential energy exporter, we can help bring stability to the geopolitics of energy, to say nothing of the positive impacts increased u.s.
supply would have on u.s. businesses, workers, and the communities in which we live. these investments and benefits don't occur in a vacuum. as washington's elected officials and leaders search for common ground, on tax policy, fiscal policy, and regulatory regimes, we need to focus on solutions that will support our ability to provide for a secure america and energy future. there is room for agreement. we welcome president obama's campaign promises to support oil and natural gas development as part of a truly all-of-the-above energy strategy. we can offer solutions to some of the most pressing issues that will impact our economic future. tax reform, infrastructure improvements, leasing of
permitting on federal lands, and regulations that don't add unnecessary layers of compliance burden on top of existing protections. and ensuring regulations won't compromise our ability to grow the economy and create jobs to domestic energy. and there is plenty of work to be done as we all know, our economy has struggled to recover. millions of americans are still out of work, and millions have stopped looking for work altogether. geopolitical turmoil -- many americans wonder if washington can work in a bipartisan manner to solve the most pressing issues of our time. i believe that we can work together. i believe that we must. if we are to ensure domestic energy is available to provide the foundation for revitalizing our domestic economy.
thanks to the fast the u.s. energy resources, the oil and natural gas industry stands ready to continue the investments made in jobs, communities, technology, the environment and safety, while improving america's energy security. we are truly investing in america's future, and we look forward to the opportunity to do more. thank you very much for your attention. i do believe happy to answer some questions. thank you. [applause] stay there. spirit we have reversed the roles today. is this on now? i promise i didn't write any. i'll ask you if you question. first is a two-part. what is the top of the most
important thing that congress can do to help achieve the vision unify data today, and also what's most important thing did administration can do? >> i think for both the first most important thing to do is to do no harm. and what i mean by that is to don't over massively overreact and we do anything that would discourage what we see going on state-by-state all across the country today. all you have to do, to keep going back to north dakota, it's one of my favorites, look at what happened there in the last decade, no one would've predicted this just a decade a ago. yet today the unemployment rate in north dakota hovers around 3%, to .9%. income for many, particularly our younger individuals coming to the workforce has doubled what the average income is for the state of north dakota. there's a huge opportunity there. so we which don't encourage both the legislature and the administration to first do no harm. we should look at the model of the states, north dakota,
colorado, pennsylvania, where thousands and thousands of jobs have been created just over the past few years. as a result of this vast resource that we have now uncovered through modern technology. so that would be our first encouragement. the second one is though, and whoever asked the question, some of the points we've laid out today, if we get the policy right, this is a game changing opportunity for the united states. not only to make us secure as a nation but we can literally reshaped as many other borders in the room have talked about, the geopolitical dynamics of the world. asia, the middle east, europe, and the list goes on. we have the opportunity for the first time, clearly in our lifetimes, to change that by moving the axis of energy power here to the united states, making us energy secure as a nation, allowing us to trade hundreds of thousands of
well-paying jobs. this is done by encouraging the economic activity, not by discouraging it through tax policies and over regulation. so do no harm, think positively what contributions we can make your society and our economy as a whole. >> you've mentioned tax policy a couple of times. what effect would removal of energy industry subsea have on domestic energy production and the u.s. economy more generally? >> let me correct the first myth. the oil and gas industry gets no subsidies. zero, none, nothing. what we get our cost recovery measures much like many other businesses get in the tax code. the impact on the industry by increasing the costs of production doing business in the united states is not positive. out economic analysis done by third party smart people, pointed out that you who don't
pashtun you only have two choices. you can go down the road of aligned economic activity generating hundreds of billions of dollars to the government by increasing the activity, job creation, new taxpayers, or you can take the alternative route by trying to extract new revenue from the industry by increasing the cost to do business. the opportunity to develop the resource, create new jobs and generate revenue shows revenue are much higher with this pass than they are with punitive tax measures. as i pointed out earlier today, today for oil and natural gas industry -- that effective tax rate is 40%. that compares to 26% for other standard & poor's industrial companies. we not only pay our fair share, we pay more than our fair share. of which we are happy to do, but
allow the industry to do what it does best, create jobs, generate revenue. that's the way to contribute to fiscal conversations of the country. the revenue needs and demands, not by discouraging. >> speaking of jobs, the next question said i'm not from a state where there is natural gas or oil drilling activity. do the job figures and economic benefits include states in areas without producing well? >> clearly the answer is yes. and what we some the statistics, clearly all across the country the keystone pipeline is a good example. it found economic activity job creation in 4950 states just through the one pipeline. when you look at the breadth and scope of our industry, every year contributing $545 billion
in capital investment, wages come in dividends. it clearly impacts our entire economy, it clearly impacts every state. i think some would be surprised to know the impact of our industry on states that are considered, or not consider traditional oil and gas states. the state of minnesota, i know one of the senators came up to north dakota. i saw minnesota license plates in the parking lot, everything that's taking place in north dakota. and you see this clear across the country. the oil and natural gas industry is a very significant investor, and we impact the entire economy, and i think we can show you state-by-state that impact. >> a little bit of recurring themes here, for what i think is our final question. a great deal of media about the fact that the u.s. could be the world's largest oil producer by 2020. overtaken saudi arabia.
question about what that is based but i think more importantly, current lan access and production levels, can't we reach that by 2020 and will we be the biggest hindrance to getting there? >> there's a number of answers to that. let me say first, the comment about achieving, number one, oil-producing world by 2020 comes to the international energy administration. doesn't come from industry but it comes from the experts to look at the industry, and they predicted if the energy policy of the united states is handled well we could surpass saudi arabia as the number one producer by 2020, eight short years. so the potential exists. the resource in the united states is vast. as i mentioned in my remarks, oil shale alone in three western states is three times the proven reserves of what saudi arabia holds today. the key to it is access the ability to develop it, find the technologies to extract it for
domestic consumption, and you potential export as we look down the road. so the hindrance to us today as to what we look at i believe government policies. all we need to do is look at what the states have done on state and private land, again, north dakota being a perfect example. but you can see this in colorado. you conceived in pennsylvania. governor of pennsylvania talks about creating over 85,000 jobs in 18 months in the state of pennsylvania. but it's on private and state land. if federal policy neither did the example and model of what our governors are doing, it would be a game changing opportunity. today, over 85% of the outer continental shelf is still off limits. even for industry to look into seek to find what is out there. permeating and leasing on shore, on lands, federal lands in the united states is down. this is where policy really
matters. if we do it well, we have the potential to achieve all what we're talking about experts all around the globe, the united states could really have a game changing opportunity to perhaps dominate the energy equation for decades to come. we've got to make the right choices. we have to pursue sound public policies, and by getting those policies right, we can achieve that potential as a nation, put our people back to work, and worry less about some of the geopolitical instabilities around the world. >> i understand we just got some questions from twitter. i'm not sure what that means. >> marty is not art social networking guy, can you tell? [laughter] >> i will explain it to you later, marty. >> thanks, jack. one of the greatest threats to production and refining of american energy, we sorted talk
about production. on the refi side you might want to focus on spent the refining sector, i see some refiners represented here today. a huge opportunity. 500,000 jobs in the u.s. today in the refining sector. constitutes over 2% of our gross domestic product each year. today, we meet the demands of our society, we're able to fill those with a rake to build, moderate technologies and expansion of existing footprints. but we also have potential to be an energy exporter in a very significant weight in the long term. we need to look at all these options. we should consider this newfound vast energy resource the same way we would consider any other product that we have in the united states. we need to look to the future and say what policies will make a difference. we can produce more refined product here and make it available around the world. anything we contribute to the supply equation puts downward pressure on price. we've got to have the courage to get the policy right.
we need to change our way of thinking. for too long we have approached energy as a matter of scarcity and having finite limitations on it. that's not true anymore. and that dynamic has just changed recently. we should be more thoughtful and understanding that we have a vast resource. we ought to take advantage of it for the benefit of all america americans. >> let me thank you all for being here today. we look forward to working with all of you as we pursue sound energy policy, and senator heitkamp, once again we look forward to working with you as you show us the model for the rest of the country. thank you very much for being here. we appreciate it. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. thank you for being patient today. i'm sure you've all heard our remarks so why do we just opened
up the question and answer. eric, do you want to call on folks? that way i won't have to be the bad guy. >> right over here. >> jim landers. you mentioned a few times in your speech the potential of oil shale in utah, colorado and whatnot. i haven't heard much about that. are you anticipating something in terms of cost break on that, or what's coming? >> no, there's nothing new to report on that, other than jim, to point out the potential here in the united states of a vast energy resource. a lot of people don't realize the breadth and scope of what we have here through modern technology, particularly braking technology of hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling, have made a lot of energy, oil and natural gas that we knew was there but was not economic to produce. now it's economic. so we think about oil shale,
it's a good reminder, and anecdotal fact to remind folks that in those three states alone, utah, wyoming and colorado, we have as much potential oil as, three times what saudi arabia has in proven reserves. the simple message is not that any breaks have occurred but the simple message is we have a great future opportunity and lots of different ways by continuing the investment and the technologies, and the potential development for these resources. that's why we mention it. >> been country and i wanted to ask you, you did mention hydraulic fracking just that, but in the remarks were talking about new technologies and techniques. is that specifically what your talking about? and what these api doing to get their message out about that, especially in light of like the film promised land and some of the debates that go on there about a? >> we are very active. as i mentioned earlier, perhaps let me restate it.
a combination of hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling has been a game changer in the united states. indeed, around the world. we now have identified vast resources here that can be produced in an economically. we are very active with regulators to make sure that it's not an appropriately regulated. but we need to look to the states as models but if we look to some of the states that we talked about earlier, pennsylvania, colorado, ohio, north dakota, and the list goes on, the governors have already moved to regulate the technology. we welcome robust, appropriate regulation. we discourage duplicative regulations that can create conflict and create a disincentive to produce the nation's energy. so when it comes to hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling, we are working very closely with the states. with activities going on in 11 states right now to continue to educate around these breakthrough technologies. and it really is part of a game
changing opportunity. we think technologies, plural, will continue to refine and develop not only those technologies but many others. >> you under thank you for doing this. >> good to see you again. >> you mentioned the keystone pipeline a couple times in your speech but i wonder if you could come if you have an assessment whether my president obama will reject or approve the pipeline? if he does reject it won't be the political consequences be? >> we are hopeful that he will approve it, and right now we are encouraged i what we're hearing from the white house. obviously, as a result of alleged report coming from the state of nebraska, the governor has to make a final decision that may affect the department of state. but we're hopeful the president will approve. i think we'll look at it from a jobs perspective, from the energy needs of the united states, as prime minister harper said on a number of occasions, it's a no-brainer. so we're hopeful the president will step forward.
i think will be an early indication as the president's commitment based on what he promised to the american people when he said that he would be for oil and natural gas develop it as part of his 20 above all-of-the-above energy strategy. it could be a signal as to what he means by that. we are hopeful he will live up to what he promised the public by the public wants. today over 70 present of the american people believe we should expand and develop more of our oil and natural gas resources. so clearly he would be on the side of the american public and be consistent with what he promised during his reelection. and, frankly, it's good for the nation. so we're hopeful he will approve the keys of xl pipeline. from our vantage point sooner rather than later. >> let's take a question from the phone. i understand we have one on the phone. now we will test our technologies.
>> this call is from peter johnson. >> you are life. >> peter? we can get back to the. why don't we try another question over here. >> what's your reaction to the problem shale is having in the arctic? does it show that drilling cannot be done safely in that region? >> great question, john. let me just finish one thing what's going on in the arctic right now. what occurred is a transportation incident in very high seas and rough waters. it was unrelated to the director drilling activity. as you know the past summer was successful to the extent they were able to accomplish it before removing a lot of the
assets. so i think the most important thing is to distinguish that that the incident was a transportation, a movement situation. as i understand as of now they say the guide in harbor. there have been no environmental impacts. no adverse impacts to human beings. so as of now it appears things are under control. we will just have to see as things develop. >> i'm with "christian science monitor." you mentioned several times your talk before the need to avoid punitive tax measures and you also mentioned a lot of your members are high effective ratepayers in terms of the corporate income tax. i was wondering if you could so talk about tax reform a little bit, whether you would be, whether you think it would be a good step forward to change some of those cost recovery measures that you talked about for lower effective rates, for energy producers? and if you could just say two words, two sentences about what you expect out of tax reform, if
anything. >> great question. which is very time and the current dynamics as well. let me state from an industry standpoint, our view is that we should not be singled out as an industry for punitive tax treatment. as you know there have been proposals over the past few years where they have identified in some instances just for coverage. they should change the tax code impact these four companies. we think that's very inappropriate. it's punitive. it's not good tax policy. it's not good policy at all. it's punitive, designed to punish. so we think the alternative approach is if are going to have a corporate tax reform discussion, we are prepared to enter into that discussion. we will be at the table along with everybody else. and it truly should be a comprehensive reform. we should look at the impact on u.s. companies and their ability to participate and compete on a global scale. so clearly the lower you get that rate the more competitive it makes us, the more incentives, the higher the
incentive, to bring those dollars back here to the tourney. our companies are large because they have to compete on a global scale. they primarily compete against foreign governments. so when you look around the world as to where they're going to invest their resource, they look for the most competitive place. so anything to bring the corporate rate down to incentivize the investment dollars to return to the united states, or to put more than here, is a positive. so we're happy to have that conversation. we expect to be part of the table in a conference avoid. not any punitive way. not to single out one industry to say well, your earnings appear to be high so let's go take some of that resource. that shouldn't be the standard. the standard should be how to have a positive uniform tax code that encourages economic activity, create jobs, create more taxpayers, and ultimately generate more revenue but as i
mentioned in one of the questions in the remarks out in the forum, the analysis shows that you generate more revenue to government by allowing the economic activity to occur than you do by trying to penalize an industry in raising their costs, and discouraging the very investment you are trying to encourage to generate the economic activity. so that's our view on tax reform. i think it's unclear right now whether or not we will have comprehensive corporate tax reform or the fiscal cliff deal, in the context of that dialogue and the need to raise the debt ceiling and the focus now on spending cuts, it will be interesting over the next few weeks to see were corporate tax reform falls out on that conversation. >> i made my way over here. >> david. can you tell us what is your top legislative priority this year?
>> we have a lot of priorities. as i mentioned in the earlier comments, the first one is to encourage government and policymakers to do no harm. if we look at the game changing opportunities occurring in the energy area, it is truly revolutionary. so our first council of look to our priority is to say don't do anything that would discourage that investment and economic activity. so when we look at priorities, we first look at issues like regulatory regimes. we look to the congress and say, what else can we do to open up other areas for access? we're not talking about national parks. we're not talking about sensitive areas. we're talking about areas that have potential for vast oil and natural gas development. where the industry would be prepared to invest billions of dollars to hire hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of people in creating new jobs. so our broader priorities fall within that category.
how do we take advantage of this perhaps once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to shift the geopolitical dynamic of energy policy to concentrate that i care in the united states? so that is our overarching priority. from that it breaks out into there is issues. tax policy being an important one, to the earlier question. regulatory policy. what will the feds do on hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling? the state of already acted. they have moved in and to regulate those activities. for the feds to overlay a second level that would conflict and perhaps duplicate is not good policy. so we will be watching all those areas closely as to how they unfold and to make sure we take advantage of the game changing opportunity here in the states. >> i am with reuters. i've wanted to ask a question about apis relationship with the obama administration. i know, well, before the
election, you said that it seemed like they were kind of being more, or reaching out more to the oil and gas industry compared to the start of the administration. are using more of that now that the reelection has happened, are you seeing that there's more outreach or that you're able to get your messages across to the administration? what are hearing from them? and then also i wanted to know, you talked about expanding, but with the reelection of the obama administration, it would seem like that's pretty much off the table, you know, the five year plan is already done for offshore. they don't seem to be showing any movement towards expanding access, so is there some type of deal i could be made or how would or how would that happen speak with a lot of questions. let me try to remember them all and respond accordingly. first of all there's lots of opportunity to change policy, to encourage the development of u.s. resource. it does and i'll have to occur within the administration.
while the outcome -- authority in the decision, clearly congress could act. there's already underfoot, there some now talking about the need to expand the potential opportunities. we have bipartisan support in the state of virginia. we have talk all up and down the south atlantic, a potential opportunities to begin to look in those areas, develop those resources. the new chairman of the senate energy committee, senator wyden, is talking about a revenue-sharing proposal very early on with senator murkowski. these are significant shifts in policy that would allow for the responsible development of the nation's oil and natural gas. so it doesn't all rest within the ministry should i will say over the past few months we've had an increase positive dialogue with the administration. ..
>> the shifting of the policies that relate to oil and gas, and remember a few years ago in the state of the union, he referredded to oil and gas and yesterday's energy, and throughout the campaign, he gave it a full-throated endorsement of the need to produce america's oil and natural gas. why? because that's where the american people are. almost 2-to-1 today, the american public believes we should produce our own energy resource. they know we can do it here safely. they see the job creation potential, the revenue generation potential, and the national security implications of this opportunity. they strongly support it. i think the president did the right thing when he moved back to a position of saying, you know what?
we need to produce the nation resource. the relationship has improved, and i believe moving forward, that we will be able to work together and to find some common ground. i think that's what the public expects of us as industry, as the administration, and the congress, and so we're looking for those opportunities to work together. >> i'm from bna. >> yeah. >> you mentioned energy independent in 12 years. as the efforts to renew the -- [inaudible] >> i think it's consistent. when you look at the renewable fuel standard -- let me back up. we could be liquid, self-sufficient here in north america within 12 years. some believe you can do it quicker. canadians are the number one importer partner believes we can do it in eight years. there's three components. there's, of course, what we
produce, refine right here in the united states, what we potentially bring in from canada, and then, of course, the continued expansion in renewable fuels. it's consistent. renewable fuels industry will continue to produce their product. we welcome that. the oil and gas industry are major investors in renewable forms of energy. our concerns come about with the mandates as part of the renewable fuel standard with what we see now is not good policy. there's the blend wall, pushing for e-15 fuels, and even aaa warned consumers not to use the fuel. you now have auto manufacturers saying we're not going to honor warranties on your cars if you use a higher blend of e-15. over the past year, there's been a lot of conversation because of increased fuel -- increased food costs, ect., as a result of the renewable fuel standard. the agriculture industry, consumer industries, the restaurant associations, they
are all now raising concern, a waiver request was made and denied. what it shows is renewable fuel standard mandate does not work. therefore, it needs to be changed, and it needs to be repealed to become more workable. renewable fuels are a key part of our energy infrastructure and our energy equation in the united states, but not if the system or the policy doesn't work. in 2007, when it was first enacted, it was put in place driven by the need to wean us off foreign sources of oil. today, we see that weaning occur primarily due to the vast domestic energy and oil production here in the united states. new day, new circumstances. we need to relook at the policies, update them, make them more effective, and make them more workable, and that's why we'll pursue policies this year to change the renewable fuel standard.
>> peter -- [inaudible] >> yeah, peter. >> [inaudible] >> considering what, i'm sorry, i didn't hear. speak loud. >> [inaudible] >> do i think they need to what? >> [inaudible] >> i think, as you'll point out, as the secretary of interior and others, shell is closely watched as they are moving equipment back and forth, as they are looking to drill in the arctic. i think they are not only highly regulated, but monitored and scrutinized in what they are doing. it has to move forward. this is a perfect example of ways in which we have to cooperate with regulators, the greatest and latest technologies are there, but at the same time, allow for the realistic development of the resources. they are closed to be looked at by the canadians, russians, and others, and the united states has to be more thoughtful about
our own interest, and that's a perfect example of what shell is doing now in pursuing those opportunities. >> bobby mcmahon, eta. what epa pending policies are you concerned about in the coming weeks and months? >> well, in the short term, we are working closely with them on a number of things as you know. the rims rule making. the fraudulent rims can't be in there, manage the risk better. the government has to step up more so the program functions. look at the mandate on the renewable fuel standard that i didn't mention per the earlier question. here you have a situation where it's not produced in commercial quantities, but the epa has authority to essentially tax the industry costing us millions of dollars to provide revenue to the government because we don't use a fuel that doesn't exist. that's a problem. bad public policy, that's a
focus to talk to epa about. epa, relating to fracking, drilling, and issues like two and three fuel approaches. to date, we have not seen any justification for the proposals. they put them off for the time being. we are hopeful that cooler heads prevail and they will continue to put them off until there's justification for them. those are put a few. i got a longer list in detail, and my sign -- scientists probably have a longer list. >> bill murray with energy intelligence group. >> yeah, bill? >> spent millions on advertising, promoting public name, and the energy security issues. have you noticed any change in the relationship between, you know, the industry and the reputational industry, the reputation of the industry, plurality, and questioning the motives, sometimes in i mean, what is your take on that after a big investment in the -- since you've been on -- part of the
organization? >> yeah, couple answers to that. the first one is we're very pleased with our success to date and ongoing outreach and educational efforts, particularly with the american people. the congress is a lagging indicator. the congress responds to those that vet for them and elect them so the key is to educate the american public and encourage the american public to speak out. we're very pleased with our success to date. we see record high support for the oil and natural gas industry today, now exceeding 70%. the american public is becoming more active in the debate the more they understand and the potential opportunity for the country, job creation, economic recovery, all of these, we've been talking about. we're pleased with the dialogue, with the american public. we'll continue the dialogue as i mentioned today. a lot of the messaging moving forward in interacting w-9 american public will be on investing on america's future.
if you look at the vast, high numbers of investments that we're making, 545 billion dollars a year, over a trillion dollars every two years, but the private sector, specifically, just the oil and natural gas industry is investing in the domestic economy. this is a big deal. the stimulus program that congress enacted was $700 billion to stimulate the whole economy. we, as an industry, are doing a trillion dollars every two years. there's broad public support for america's oil and natural gas industry. we believe that's the port that continues to grow. we are pleased with the way it's interacting in the public dialogue. you see senator wyden, the chairman of the energy committee, talking about areas where to improve our oil and natural gas production. these things do not happen overnight, but the trends are going in a positive direction. >> [inaudible]
>> well, we have multimillion dollar programs and will continue to advance them going forward to engage in the public dialogue. >> try again the call-in. >> peter johnson from great falls tribune, your line is open. >> peter johnson, great falls tribune from montana. how much has developed in north quarter montana, adding to the self-sufficiency of the u.s., and what do you expect in the next five to ten years from that formation. >> peter, thanks for the question. the formation in north dakota and into eastern montana he's references, for those not familiar, has been very significant. north dakota, over the past two to three years set record production every year, and, today, produces right around 750,000 barrels a day. the only state to surpass that today is the state of texas
producing 1.1 million. as i mentioned in the opening remarks, north dakota in the past year now surpassed alaska and california to become the number two oil producer, so expectations are that that will continue to grow, perhaps not as fast as its grown to date. just eight to ten years ago, north dakota produced about 60,000 barrels a day. it's now over ten times what it was just a few years ago. this is how significant of change the technology has been in terms of the development of ours, particularly, in this specific case of the baucan formation. >> jean from green wire. >> yes? >> you didn't mention greenhouse gas rules as you communicate kate with epa on. i'm curious, there's court order to finalize defining greenhouse gas rule, and i guess it will seccombe happen after they deal with the power sector. are you confident that it won't
happen, and do you see now opportunities for reducing greenhouse gases within the refining sector, or what are your -- what's your sense and communication at this point with epa on that? >> two dimensions in the answer. first, no, that was oversight on my part. clearly, it is a concern. something we believe that should be handled appropriately. the second piece of it, though, that i did mention in the comments, we should not overlook the vast production of the nation's natural gas resource today, which is resulting in the price coming from about $13 down to $3, $2.5, ect., and the more consumption of the natural gas in the electric facility sector brought greenhouse gas emissions in the united states to 1992 levels. that required no government mandate or regulation. it was simply a matter of what the economy produced as a result of producing a cleaner burning
fuel, in this case, natural gas. i believe what the epa should do looking to regulate activities, be thoughtful. this goes back to the broader question about access. here we have a cleaner burning fuel that dmon straighted -- demonstrated a positive impact in carbon emissions reductions. they are pursuing low carbon in many technologies, but the very fuel we're allowed to produce in vast quantitity is really what's driving that to date in reducing the carbon emissions. that should be taken in consideration with all other aspects in regulating carbon emissions. >> [inaudible] >> well, within the refining sector, we're looking at that and constantly improving what we do in terms of emissions. again, we need to look at where the emissions are coming from.
the electric utility sector is where the vast majority of carbon emissions occur today. it's appropriate, they look at that sector long before the refinery sector which is really quite small compared to other emitting forms. >> miller from voa news. >> yeah. >> we're a pocketbook nation. a year ago at the last energy address, oil prices and gasoline prices approached record highs. we're seeing national average at $3.30 a gallon right now. what's changed since your last address? >> well, what's changed is the continued evolution of this revolutionary opportunity. today, more of the american people understand what's happened in the united states in terms of our energy development personal. hundreds of house of new jobs have been created since last year, and more and more are starting to recognize the
significant impacts that can take place on a geopolitical global basis as a result of what's occurring here in the united states. in talking to one of my friends after our discussion out here today, he happened to be in the middle east last week and commented what we're talking about here is the topic of conversation in the middle east. it's the topic of conversation in europe. it's the topic of conversation in asia, and why is that? because it's a game changing opportunity. we literally have the ability, as i mentionedded earlier, to shift that access of energy power to the united states. the question is, will we do it? we're right on the threshold of making those judgments. it's evolving in a positive way, and that's what's changing. you are seeing more and more bipartisan support through the development of energy here in this country. north carolina could be a major natural gas producer. the governor, recently just
elected, was asked what's the top priority, and he said to make north carolina an energy state. arkansas, places we don't traditionally think of as energy states. though, arkansas' been producing for some time. this opportunity spans the entire country. michigan, ohio, the list goes on. that's what's changing. more and more people are becoming aware of this opportunity, and i believe public support for it will continue to grow. >> time for a couple more questions. >> chad woodworth. you mentioned a study done and natural gas, in part due to hydraulic fracking, but energy would not happen in today's economics, the prices in the united states are too high or prices abroad too low. considering the number of facilities proposed, but also
high decline rates in natural gas wells, increasing use of gas in the power sector and do you think that we are potentially setting ourselves up for a difficult situation where we need more natural gas, but the price is not as low as it is today? >> well, you know, back to the neurostudy. the important thing is it reminds us that government should not intervene and regulate exportation of natural gas at this point. stay focused on its benefit and treat it like any other commodity produced in the united states and not discriminate against its potential export. that's what the study underneath all the data concludes is that it's a net positive benefit to the united states. now, the question posed really gets into the very issues that our industry looks at on a daily basis. what's the future look like? most of the decisions that are making today are based on five, ten, 15, 20 year outlooks.
this is where the private sector performs well. they get to take those risks, shouldn't be shifted to the taxpayer, but what it provides for is looking to the futures as to what that market might be. we heard today, saw representatives, many in the chemical industry, the steel industry, folks from the fertilizer industry and aggravated assault came -- agriculture industries came up to say hello. all of that will impact that very discussion, but the important part i believe of what the neurostudy concludes is whatever level it may or may not be, it's positive for the u.s., domestic economy. >> turning to the phone, and then we have one more question left. >> your line is now open. >> okay. we have two questions left.
>> hi, thank you very much, just a quick question on your action towards soe investments in the u.s., like, for example, if you think there's going to be more soe investments from china, and if you think there's a level playing field in the fact that some of these investments are financed by the chinese government and whatnot. what's your approach or your say, take on that going forward? >> i probably really don't have an opinion of that. i have not thought much about it. we see what the canadians have done with investment coming out of china, particularly, the oil sands area. particularly, from our industry's perspective, they operate on a global basis with the view to allow to market to work so there's not any artificial limitations or exparticipations in the marketplace, but other than, frankly, i have not given it much thought.
we'll react to that if a and when it occurs or what we begin to see. >> one more question. sorry we could not accommodate more questions from the phones. we'll work on that technology next time, but this is the last question. >> joel from energy wire. there's new -- a couple big fights, and, perhaps one ensuing here with the department of defense and department of state. you expect there to be a fight with regard to epa and energy, an can you describe any conversations you're having with the white house and, you know, will you be participating in any, i don't know, fight if that occurs? >> well, i wouldn't want to hurt any candidate by endorsing them today. i'll keep that quiet. no, i think clearly, there will be some changes. of course, lisa jackson decided
to move on. i think what's important is that we get reason, thoughtful, scientifically based individuals, particularly in the areas such as epa. look at the fence and look at senator hagel and others, there's a lot of issues surrounding that. the science area is where we have to stay focused. whoever the president would like to serve in his discretion, obviously, that's his call. i don't want to judge where he's going on what motivated him to make that decision, but, clearly, anyone who fills the roles, we would seek to have a good relationship to base policy development in sound science and to pursue the mutual interests that we can find, the commonground we can find in the policy development. as i mentioned to one of the earlier questions today, we had a good dialogue over the past couple months, and we have areas that we disagree on. we represent a broader industry that sometimes sees the world differently than perhaps a regulator might. we support robust regulation,
but we believe regulation should be thoughtful, and it should be based in science, and that's what drives our conversation in dealing with the regulators. we welcome the opportunity to work with whoever the president may nominate, whoever the president can get confirmed in those capacities, and i'll look forward to continuing a dialogue based on sound singes and not on purify loss my or ideology. >> thank you, all, very much for joining us. happy new year. >> thank you very much for being here today, and i'm sure eric, over time, we can follow-up and answer questions anybody else has so thank you very much, appreciate it. [inaudible conversations] >> the white house yet to confirm it, but the hill and various other news outlets saying president obama tapped current white house chief of staff jack lew to take the place of tim geithner, and we expect that announcement tomorrow. jay carney likely to get
questions about that today at the white house briefing set to start at 2:15 eastern now, and it will be live here on c-span2 live coverage, a discussion on this year's budget battle from today's "washington journal." >> host: back at the table is the president of club for growth, talking about the republican agenda for the 113th congress. let me show our viewers the "washington times" from mondays and the headline, g.o.p. shut down and sanity jolt as a way to press need for cuts." when it comes to the next budget battles ahead, republican senators, ted cruz, and others, laying the ground work. are you part of the effort or consulting with them on this? what do you think about it? >> guest: we supported people like cruz and others champions
of economic freedom in the senate and other house members. we do that because we want fiscal sanity in washington. we endorse people at the club for growth we think hold a pro-growth view, a pro-economic growth agenda. we're in desperate need of that, you know, there's talk about shut down of the government and so forth. it reinvolves around the debt ceiling debate. i don't think it's a debt ceiling debate, but a debt debate. the question is simple. do we want more debt or less debt? people like ted cruz and colleagues in the senate say we should have less debt, and republicans want less, the democrats want more. the insane thing to do is to continue on the path we're on. >> host: endorsing the idea of shutting down the government in order to get what the republicans would like? >> guest: endorse the idea of responsible behavior. you know, the only thing more
irresponsible than shutting the government down is continuing to suffocate ourselves in debt. we have $16 trillion in debt. we have an annual deficit over a trillion dollars every single year, and we have $86 trillion in unfunded liabilities that we have no idea how to pay. the previous guest talked about raising taxes on rich people. the fact is you can take the net worth of every single american, take all of their money in their bank account, their homes, their cars, take everything, and you would be 30% short of the promises already made. you can't tax your way out of this. you have to have fundamental reform. you have to realign our entitlement systems so they are sustainable, and we have to be serious about this, and the pain of a temporary shut down pails in comparison to continuing the past we're on where we devastate our country and future generations. >> host: what do you think of the fiscal cliff deal that passed? >> guest: no good outcome achievable. we opposed the final deal
because raising taxes on anyone is anti-growth. we have to focus op pro-growth policy to get the economy growing. we don't oppose new revenues, and revenues as a result of economic growth is fine. if you have pro-growth tax policy, the economy grows, and you'll generate more revenue so, but we understand the debate that members of congress have with themselves. if i do nothing, taxes go up on every. if i do this, taxes go up on some. you can't debate spending. they kicked the can down the road again. in august 2011, they raised the ceiling by 2.1 trillion. what did we get in return? a promise to find a way to the supercommittee or through the sequester of cutting spending. they cut zero. >> host: not targeting republicans who voted for the deal? >> guest: we don't target anybody on a single vote, but a pattern of behavior, the dorse of their career, how they voted, whether they supported a pro-growth agenda.
there's a score card every session of congress, look at the scores, the come pielation of the service. this is one vote, in the score card, but just one vote. >> host: the headline, club for growth punish members voting for any flood aid. >> guest: well, i don't know, we didn't write that headline. we did score the vote in the house and senate. we want people to get relief they deserve. we think the federal government has a role to play in some disasters, but disasters are unpredictable in the sense we don't know when and where they hit, but we have them every year, and every time that we have them, it's the same response. let's pass a bloated, pork laiden disaster relief bill that's not paid for. our only point is, let's just put money aside that was there when people need it, and let's pay for it. if we have to find money to help
those in need which is appropriate in many cases, then there's other places where we don't need to spend the money. this is a higher priority than other spending. just making an additive every time, making ourselves more and more in debt is a disaster in itself. >> host: this is what governor christie had to say in the state of the state address yesterday. >> we, as a state, waited 72 days, seven times longer than the victims of hurricane katrina waited, and one thing i hope everybody in america now clearly understands is that new jersey, both republican and democrats will never stand silent when our citizens are being shortchanged. >> host: your reaction? >> guest: he's the governor of the state, advocating for the state, no question. it would be great if governor christie and his style would say, you know, we deserve the help that others received in the
past, but we don't deserve things like fixing the roof on the smithsonian and hundreds of billions of dollars that have nothing to do with helping the people affected by sandy. that would be the responsible thing to do and responsible advocacy to pass it and not worry about all wasteful spending, but put the chirp in more debt. put our country on a more unsustainable footing so we get ours now is the problem that we have been through for really generations. we can't continue to do this. i think that was an opportunity missed by the governor. he needs to advocate for his state, no question. we need to help those affected by sandy, but we don't need to hurt everybody else in the process. >> host: the club for growth look at governor's races when you put money and resources behind a certain candidate? >> we do not, just federal races for house and senate. >> host: governor christie in the state of the state address
said washington has to look at us and how we do things around here. what do you think of him as a governor? >> guest: there are many reform governors in the country that we should look to as examples of reform that we need to adopt as a country. in some cases, governor christie has done a very good job, i think, in describing the problem. in many cases, we don't describe the problem very well, and so i think, you know, he's not perfect, but he has good points. the direct style is appealing, and i wish they would use it for explaning the problem that we have on our fiscal unsustainable footing more clearly. >> host: we covered that state of the state address yesterday here on c-span. we're covering many state of the state addresses by governors including governor governor andw cuomo's address today at 1 p.m. on c-span. go to to follow all the programs as well as the state of the state addresses. back to the sandy relief.
here is the "new york post this morning -- or "the new york daily news" headlines, "sandy aid backers hunt five more votes," votes needed to approve $51 billion in emergency aid for new york and other states battered by hurricane sandy. they had the support of every house democrat and every republican house member leaving just five votes short. are you counting on this? are you keeping track of where the votes are for this bill? this is something the house takes up when they return next week. >> well, we don't with members of congress. we put out what we call key vote alerts, and we try to explain what we think the right vote would be, but in this case, again, a lot of the money is not going near new jersey or new york. a lot of the money is not going to sandy victims, and a lot of the money has very little oversight, so, you know, i think
what we ought to do is find out exactly what sandy effected people need. we think flood insurance ought to be a state and local speedometer, not a federal responsibility. people paid premiums, but there was no money to pay off the obligations so they had to refund $9.5 billion just to cover obligations that the government had. not the way to run a program because people when they make their decisions with individuals, they are not getting a risk calculation. it's distorted because the federal government does not now how to price risk. they like the current flood program because they get pay to administer it and take on none of the risk. you have a perverted risk calculation on all sides leading up to situation where you have $9.5 billion of obligations with no money to pay it putting the insurance people in difficult position, putting the taxpayers
in difficult position, and then we have to go borrow from our kids to pay it off. it's a very bad system that we have to look for a way to make it fair to all those concerned, the people that are affected, the taxpayers, and future generations. >> host: getting the viewers involved. michael in florida, democratic caller. >> caller: hi, how are you doing? i would like to ask this congressman, okay, who is the one spending the money? okay? they are the ones in charge of that. they act like the president just has a whole treasure full of blank checks that he can just write out left and right. you tell me, you guys have been up there for two years, who is doing the spending? who -- >> guest: michael, i'm not a congressman, a former congressman, but congress spends the money, no question about that. our criticism of congress is bipartisan and both parties have been engauged in irresponsible spending for decades, and so we
think it's unsustainable to continue on this path. that's our point. that's why we think that the debt limit debate is a very crucial today to have. we are not going to advocate shutting down the government, but advocate for responsible behavior because we can't continue to take on the debt and deficit and up funded liabilities that suffocate our future. you're right. congress speeppedz the money. congress should have the responsibility. >> host: another michael, virginia, republican caller. >> caller: hi, good morning. my comment is really for the former congressman here, and more so to adam green who was the previous guest. it's really, we need to do what it takes to control the crazy spending, even if that takes us into a government shut down to get the point across, and then let it be. we are headed on the same path as greece and spain were a few
years ago. we're headed there very quickly. most people don't realize that. one of the very successful, destructive policies that were instituted by this administration is the dividing of the country. everybody's speaking about the little guys against the big guy. we are all in the same boat. when we sing, if we sink, we all sink. i hope it never happens, but if we enter this end that we all fear, we will get there together. big corporations, small guys, grandma, grandpa who get paid social security benefits, everybody will get there at the same time at the same speed. >> host: okay, michael, got your point. >> guest: michael's right. we are all in this together. we all share in the debt and deficits that the country created, and so we have to find ways to work together to change the path and to dig our way out. there are very sensen ways ins is, and you fix social security
relatively easily if you can find a bipartisan way to do it. medicare is harder. social security has four moving parts. medicare has a thousand moving parts so it's more difficult. medicaid, the same thing. we have to find ways to do it and continuing to kick the can down the road and saying, well, we can't do the hard thing today, but trust us to do the hard things later is uninspiring and typical of congress. we will look like greece in many ways, we already look like greece. you know, our debt is about 100% of the gdp. our government is about 25% of our annual economy, and those are numbers that are historically dangerous frustrate country to be in, and if we don't change them soon, we'll look like greece with the same problems. once people lose confidence in our ability to be fiscalically responsible, bad things happen
fast. there was a glimpse of that in 2008. that is just an an appetizer if we don't turn around soon. >> host: did you support boehner for speaker again? >> guest: we don't do leadership races. that's inside baseballment only members of congress get that vote, and, you know, i served with boehner, a fine individual, a conservative individual. i wish he would lead a little more consistent with the own votes, and they have to represent the congress do its will, but i think that nancy pelosi 1 -- is a great example, and i have great respect for pelosi because in the health care debate, she provided real leadership, took the risk of leadership because she believed in obamacare. she was going to find a way to get it through the house, and she was going to risk her majority in the process.
she knew he was at risk, lost the majority over it, but it's the law today. there is a lesson there for republicans to stand up for what they believe, to take the risk and lose. >> host: are you more effective, able to raise more money if you are in the minority or fighting with democrats or fighting within yourself actually i should say? >> guest: it's not fighting, but encouraging. you know, it doesn't matter. what we try to do is hold every member of congress accountable, and in many respects, we are critical of republicans. we're not a republican organization, but a fiscal conservative organization. we just do economic issues, not social issues or foreign policy. we try to find ways to promote proeconomic growth policy. our first focus in political races is through the pact, safe
open republican seats. if there's a safe, open republican state or district, it's going to elect a republican, we will, any thyme get involved because we want the most pro-growth candidate to have the best chance. >> host: in a federal way, independent caller, ohio. >> caller: thank you for letting me on the air. i have tough questions for you. the, you know, earlier, you stated if we solve everything in the country, we are 30% under funded for the debt. now, who do we owe the debt to? i know the answer. it's the federal reserve bank, and i know why we would be short because of the all the interest charged on the loans from the federal reserve. why don't we just go back to the constitutional currency and quick using debt-based, long based money? i mean, you're talking about subtle debt. our whole money system is debt. >> host: okay. >> caller: the other thing you talking about with social security. you want to fix it. just follow the law. under the law it's voluntary. why don't we just expose the
voluntary nature. those who want to participate can participate, and any money paid in will be in a fund for anyone to participate. >> host: all right, chris? >> guest: first of all, clarifying when i talk about taking the net worth of every american and be 30% short, that's unfunneledded liabilities. that's the obligations and promises made in response to social security, medicaid, and federal pensions. that's different people with different numbers, but say it's $86 trillion, and that's what thyme talking about. we do not have enough net worth in the country to satisfy that promise. you're right, they are not legal obligations. social security was created by congress and can be changed by chong, and should be. republicans want to change medicare as we know it, republicans should say, you're darn right i want to. what i know is that it's going bankrupt. it will be bankrupt. it can't fulfill the promises made to people who rely on medicare.
there are ways to solve these problems that not only provide the benefits of those that need it, you don't cut benefits, you just slow the growth of benefits, and, frankly, wealthier people get less and less wealthy people get more. under many of the proposals that actually help saved these programs so that's the point i was trying to make, and i think that if congress would do the math rather than the politics, they could find a way to fix it. >> host: big king on twitter has this, "the tea party willing to collapse the economy out their out of touch ideology. how sad. >> guest: is it out of touch to spend what we take in? out of touch to say we shouldn't burden our children with more debt just so we cannot have to make any hard decisions today? let's let them make the hard decisions tomorrow. is it out of touch to say that we will not learn from the examples of what's going on in
europe today? they cannot fix their problems. we have people rioting in the streets because of austerity programs. is it out of touch to say, no, we'll continue to spend our children's money, and not make hard choices and continue to take on more debt and deficit because we just simply can't do anything hard. i think that's the out of touch and radical position. shutting the government down today, again, i'm not advocating for, and i don't think any republican is advocating for, but if that's the price you pay to alter the unsustainable fiscal path we're on, the pain pails in comparison to the pain we'll suffer later. >> host: dana, birmingham, alabama, democratic caller. >> caller: it's deplorable that republicans always find their religion when measures are needed that doesn't affect areas of their concern. i didn't see anybody asking for offsets when, and the federal
debt and deficit was blooming with george bush, and nobody wanted offsets to help those in the disaster relief all the way up until this president got in office. he came in with a federal debt and deficit already ballooned, but everybody found religion on spending after george bush hut the wars on the credit card and the medicare part d on the credit card. it was under already, and now they found religion and cut all programs that affect people that didn't cause the downturn or didn't cause the ballooning of the debt so they find religion when it doesn't affect them. >> guest: the club for growth had a consistent position on this. we are akooked of being uncaring when it comes time to disaster relief, and it's an up fair
accusation because we want people to get help that they need, but we think it ought to be paid for and not to put the burden or spread the burden larger. it should be a rainy day fund. there's emergencies every year that the federal government may have. debate whether they should or shouldn't, but the history has been that they are going to help those in need. put the money aside, budget for it, and let's be in a position that we can help those people if that's the decision we've made rather than having to borrow money in the future, you know. pointed out many times, every dollar spent, we borrow 40 cents of the dollar, and so continuing to put ourselves further in debt is creating a disaster for the future for every single american, and having responsible believer today where we can help those in need without creating a broader problem, i think, it's
just simply the responsible thing to do. >> host: latisha in maryland, republican caller, on the care with chris chocola for club for growth. >> caller: good morning, i commend a venue like this. i say thank you. regular, everyday citizens can speak out. as a black republican, i'm almost growing more and more frustrated by the day because i believe that we have horrible communication skills. we, i believe, are the party that blacks basically believe in because i believe that we are, in our hearts, we are conservatives, and i believe that latinos are as well; however, my question to you is what advice would you give the house and senate republican leaders on how we can communicate better to bring the blacks and the latinos over? we are doing an absolutely horrible job. we say silly things like "we're going to shut down the department of education," and
even if that's how we feel, shut down the department of labor, the epa, if we feel that way, say it in a better way and talk about it in a non-scary fashion because most black folks work at the eta, that's a good federal government job, but we say things like we're going to shut them down. what black person votes for us if we continue to do the crazy things we do in the public eye? >> guest: well, very good point. the enemy of good government is 30 seconds. that's all politicians get is 30 seconds, and republicans are not good with 30 seconds. the lessons learned over the last couple election cycles is when you have a candidate that can deliver a clear, convincing, conservative message, they win. pat toumy wins in pennsylvania, a blue state. rubio won in florida, a purple state, and flake won in 2012 in a competitive race in arizona. the thing that they share is the ability to offer the hope and
optimism of pro-growth policy and fiscal conservatism, why everyone, regardless of race or religion, has the opportunity to succeed, and america offers that opportunity, and i don't think that we have had republicans that have been very inspiring in the message, very effective in the message. i think that there are some candidates, house members, and senators that ared 2350 on a relative basis of delivering the message. tim scott from south carolina that got nominated to the senate is one of the most inspiring politicians i encornerred in year, and marco rubio transfers the message better than anyone in years. they need the hope and opportunity through free market opportunities is there for everyone regardless of race or religion in america. if they would embrace that
confidently and deliver it effectively, i think they will be appealing 20 a very broad case. >> host: the senators you mentioned, one with support for club from growth. >> guest: we do. you know, we are proud of the -- they said they couldn't win, only people like specter and chris could win in these states. ted cruz was endorsed early on when he was running in an unwinnable race against david, the lieutenant governor of texas, the republican primary, and now they are offered as the hope of the republican party and the future of our country, and so we are very grateful, support them early, and have the ability to help them get there. >> host: a press release called club for growth yesterday in case you missed it, a quote from one on msnbc saying, "tom colt ton and other freshmen in
the house that you supported was down 47 points in the first special point, and club for growth stepped in." are the people you helped win a race and possibly might not have won without your help, do you expect them to not compromise? >> guest: oh, we're all for compromise. i always find this compromise argument interesting because it's compromise in a vacuum that means nothing. where do you start the compromise means everything, and so if the confident is how much do we grow government, you know, should we grow it big or just a little more big, or do you compromise on how much we shrink government, and responsible fiscal policy, and jim demanipulate, had -- jim demint, had a long relationship with, never saw a bipartisan bill that slunk the size of government. how much should we grow government? a lot or just a little bit more? the compromise should be how
much do we shrink government, free up markets and put capitol back there rather than take it from the american people and have government redistribute it very inefficiently and ineffectively. the compromise organization, i think, is dis ingenuous. people are for compromise, but it's where you start. >> host: the deal to raise the debt ceiling then included the budget control act. was that a good compromise? >> guest: what budget control act? there's been no budget control act. it was a good compromise because the only thing that happened was we took on more debt. how much spending achieved? none. they promised the american people they would have a thing called the super committee to do good things. if you've been around washington long enough was skeptical and said, no, no, we'll have such harsh consequences to not doing the right thing now, that later we'll do things that are unimaginable. they are, and they will not do
it so, you know, the saga continues as part of the fiscal cliff. they said, well, we can't do the sequester because that's too hard. do it two months from now. come on, this is silly. now we're going to have another debt ceiling debate, and i'm sure the saga continues again. well, we'll do the hard things later. trust us. that's what got us here. this is the radical position, i think, and when people say, well, it's extreme to say we just ought to stop this, find a way to turn the ship, it's all in the past, put ourselves on a sustainable path, i don't think that's the radical position at all, but a responsible position. >> host: tina in warsaw, indiana, independent caller. >> caller: good morning. >> host: morning. >> caller: i had a question for mr. chocoala. i'm particular when -- i'm familiar with you when you served here in indiana, and i was wondering, actually, two
questions. my first question is why is it that now that our debt has become so much larger, now we are worried about it, and we're all, you know, all his tear kl about what's going on? we have to make drastic cuts, you know, all of these ideas. why -- where were the voices speaking out during the last republican president who made some really bad decisions financially, i think, even some republicans would agree with me on. that conservatively, i didn't hear anyone say, wait a minute, we're adding to the debt and deficit with the wars, medicaid part d, where were the voices then? >> host: okay, a response. >> caller: i love -- >> guest: i love warsaw, i'm
from that area. that's a good question. it's a bipartisan problem. i served from 2003 to 2007, there during the worst themes when republicans tarnished the brands of republicans by spending too much. i saw it firsthand, and my message to the leadership at that time, you know, if we did tax reform, if we did entitlement reform, you know, i think we picked seats up, and unfortunately, the leadership was not willing to do that. give george bush credit in the sense he tried to do social security reform, but it was republicans, frankly, that would not support him in that effort. you're right. it's been a bipartisan problem. let me put things in perspective a little bit, not to justify, but to put in context. when i left congress in january 2007, or annual deft sit was $168, -- $168 billion, and today, it's over $1.2 trillion. i don't recall the debt, but it was between $4 trillion and $5
trillion, and today, it's $16 trillion. we have more than quadrupled in many respects our debt and deficit. that is a path to ruin. the voices, i think, are even louder now because the problem is that much bigger, but it has been a bipartisan problem, and we think we do need a bipartisan solution to recognize that spending's the problem. the tax solution in the fiscal cliff vote was about 6% of the annual deficit. it raised about 62 billion dollars a year with a deficit of $1.2 # trillion a year. you've got 94%, somewhere around there, that was not addressed. the question for congress and the president, and i would say this president is where is the other 94% coming from? he went around the country raising taxes on rich people to solve the debt and deficit
problems. we just raised taxes on rich people, and, by the way, small businesses that employee many americans, and we solved 6% of the problem. how do you fix the other 94%? that's the question. where's that money coming from? >> host: democratic caller from pennsylvania. >> caller: good morning. i was listening for a half hour, and he comes on with all the talking points, and pat tiewmy, and he has not mentioned corporations paying anything. in 1955, corporations paid 33% of the federal government taxes. today, it's 9%. pat and club for growth wanted 0%, and, also, on these shut downs, this is for bills that we already incurred. it's, like, not paying your credit card bill. it's bills that congress voted for to raise the debt ceiling.
>> host: okay. getting a response. chris? >> guest: well, the club for growth is one of the most vocal opponents of corporate welfare for years. we do not support loopholes they enjoy. the market should control. the government shouldn't write in the tax code winners and lossers. for example, we wanted to get rid of the ethanol tax credit. as far as corporate tax rates, there's an argument they don't pay taxes, but consumers do. people that buy goods bay the combated cost the tax. you have to compete with other countries and the total cost of doing business in those countries. it's not an ideological thing, but a competitiveness thing and a math thing. how do u.s. corporations compete on the global market and how do they succeed, employee more people, and more wealth created in america, and that's a good thing. pat was president of the club
for growth, a great american, and we're, you know, proud of the service in the u.s. senate thinking he'll provide common sense leadership in the tough debates and the sequester, which is now kicked down the road again and the debt ceiling, and, so we think pat will do a good job. >> host: min lton, illinois, independent caller. >> caller: good morning. >> host: morning. >> caller: say, excuse me, i think you're starting to get the picture from all of callers who have called in. the idea that truth, justice, and the american way worked in the past. people are frustrated. i don't see anything changing, and i had a good opportunity over the years, retired now, and i don't have any debt at all. i never had any debt. excuse me, but i think it's important that you express to people that it's not that easy to recover when you've stolen, not you personally, but the banks and the corporate types,
have stolen the wealth, meaning pengses, 401(k), you can't get over that right away, and you can't make it seem like it never happened. it happened very much, and lives were ruined. i think that's something you need to really pay attention to and maybe talk to some real people. i know you lobby. i know you were a congressman. those are not real people in the real sense. >> host: former congressman. said that once, but go ahead. >> guest: you're right. they are not real people. washington's not a real place. it's something like 50 square miles surrounded by reality as someone described it, but, no, you know, there's a lot of ide yolings, a lot of people have talking points. they don't let facts get in the way of their opinions, but what we're doing right now will make things like enron look like child's play. what we are doing to future generations of americans burdening them with a debt and deficit, making promises we have no ability to pay. we need to be honest and say while there's time to put
programs on a path of stainability, we should do it. hard decisions have to be made, but not devastating decisions. we can find ways to preserve the programs and make good on the promises made, and no one, in any of the proposals, whether they like them or don't like them, talk about altering the programs. the paul ryan plan, i don't think touches anything of anybody 55 and older, and all we're talking about, drastic cuts, nobody's talking about drastic cuts, just talking about slowing the growth, and i won't get into a whole discussion of baseline budgeting, but you're right, washington's not a real place because they budget like no family in america budgets. if you slow the growth, that's called a cut. all -- some people like the club for growth say, slow the growth, and in most cases, cut in
others, and we can put the country back on a path of stainability, and if we don't, it makes corporations, bad behavior like enron look like a pretty minor thing compared to what we'll do to every american. >> host: philip, next, fort worth, texas, republican line. >> caller: hello. i wanted to bring up something that really bothers me, you know, the government, okay, i was a electrician for over 20 years, back when i was an apprentice, we did the cooling tower at our federal building, okay. that tower had a 20-year warranty on it, but in the following 20 years, they have replaced that five times. ..
>> welcome. good afternoon. thanks for being here. sorry we had to postpone the briefing. very busy day. i have a very important personnel announcement to make. actually i'm just kidding. [laughter] [inaudible] tetris to the next treasury secretary. if that is the case what is jack's selection as the secretary of state economic priorities? >> let me say two things.
first, i don't make cabinet level personnel announcements, the president does, you will not get ahead of the president when he isn't ready to make an announcement about his next treasury secretary he will make that announcement. secondly, i will say that jack lew, who is the president's head chief of staff has been and continues to be an extremely valuable adviser to the president. over the past more than a quarter of a century, jack lew has been an integral part of some of the most important budgetary, financial and fiscal agreements, a bipartisan agreement in washington. he was there when social security was reformed under president ronald reagan. he was there when tax reform passed at the table in the 1980's. he was the cabinet level
director of omb for president clinton when our budget was balanced for the first time in a generation, and she served also as you know as deputy secretary of state and has again served as the omb director overseeing some very important agreements and playing a major role in achieving them president obama and now the last year has been a remarkably capable chief of staff. >> i just thought i would say that about jack. [laughter] [inaudible] not that i'm aware of. >> how does the president of view the role of the treasury secretary? they have a different set of obstacles and challenges that secretary geithner had and 2,009 more on the fiscal policy, economic issues as opposed to
the health of the financial markets. >> well, i would say, again, without speaking to any announcements that the president sets the policy, and his advisers and cabinet secretaries carry it out. the fact of the matter is secretary geithner has over his four years in office then at the helm of the treasury department through a remarkable period of challenge and change that included the financial and economic crisis but also included negotiating a series of agreements with congress that strengthened the middle class, aided economic growth and helped job creation and certainly come as you know because the president spoke about all the time on the campaign trail and since, economic growth and job creation continue to be the president's top domestic priorities. so, all the members of his
economic team will be focused on those priorities in the second term. >> on the debt ceiling house democrats said they should consider using the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling. -- last year you said the president had the power [inaudible] but i wonder given the president's assistants to not negotiate the debt ceiling the next time around is the white house considering revisiting the issue -- >> our position on the 14th amendment has not changed. and let's be very clear: congress has the responsibility and the sole authority to raise the debt ceiling and congress must do its job. and i think it's important as we approach to the deadline of the
debt ceiling that people understand what we are talking about. because sometimes the language we use and the phrases we use here in washington make this a lot more mysterious for average folks out there than it used to be. raising the debt ceiling is simply authorizing congress to pay the bills that it's already racked up. this isn't about future spending. this is about you going to the store, the department store, and charging some goods on your credit card. you've made those purchases. the bill comes. you pay the bills. you don't tear it up and decide you're not going to pay it unless you get what you want from store management. you pay your bills. and the united states has always paid its bills. congress has the responsibility and the authority to do that, and the president will not negotiate over it. let me go to --
>> -- treasury secretary when jack lew was head of omb, department of energy, solyndra he worked for a group that could profit based on [inaudible] wide it wouldn't those raise red flags for any treasury secretary? >> you are trying in a way to get me to talk about an announcement president has not made, and i will leave it to the president to announce who his next treasury secretary will be. i will certainly say, and would have said this at any time of my tenure as press secretary, that jack lew's record has been and continues to be stellar. he is that rare person in washington that has been here for years that has done some very hard things and brokered some serious bipartisan
agreement and done it in a way that has earned the admiration of almost everybody he's worked with. so certainly the president that he's served. but i will leave it at that. >> the president is to meet with the national rifle association later this week, a group very influential in politics has been effective at preventing efforts to control guns in this country. what is his message and what is the white house strategy in dealing with that? >> the president believes that in the wake of the incident at with newtown, the tragic incident at newtown, sandy hook elementary, that we must, as a nation, and salmon every possible action that we could possibly take to reduce this
terrible scourge of gun violence. as you heard him say, it is in many ways our first responsibility to ensure that our children are safe. and what newtown brought home to us is we need to do a lot more to ensure they are safe. and he wants to hear, through the effort that he has assigned to the vice president from stakeholders of all kinds, and that certainly includes gun owners and organizations that represent gun owners. and he hopes and the vice president hopes that these organizations will bring constructive ideas to the table. that is the purpose of the effort the vice president is leading. as you know, he had some important meetings today. he has more meetings coming up, including the one you mentioned, and he is in the process of putting together a series of recommendations the president will consider, and once the president has decided on the path forward that he would
promote, she well i'm sure make that known to you. >> is there any deadline for coming up with those recommendations we are going to have? >> the president himself i believe from this podium mentioned that he had hoped to act -- hear from the effort led by the vice president this month. >> is there any particular low hanging fruit on the president's action that he could take unilaterally? >> i'm not going to get into the specifics. because i won't get ahead of the president or the vice president, but also because the process is ongoing. decisions haven't been made. the president -- you heard what the vice president said earlier today. i think that represents an area where action is possible. legislative action is certainly part of this. the president has already called on congress to act on an assault weapons ban, to act on a vanocur capacity ammunition clips and to confirm an atf director and to close the loopholes in our background check system.
these are things that congress can do and should do and the president has called on congress to do those things. but there are other things that need to be done. i won't get ahead of the process here, but as the president has said, he's looking at this broadly. not just in terms of the things that can be done legislatively, and not just in terms of the things that can be done through executive action. >> thank you. on gun control, what is the area of action on executive action that the white house would consider? >> as i just said to mark, i won't get into specifics because i won't get ahead of the president and vice president. i can tell you those decisions have not been made -- >> i mean there's some limitation as to what the president can do on his own. i'm assuming -- is it background check? >> again, i'm not going to get ahead of the president or the vice president. the process being led by the vice president.
background checks are something i think we've discussed in terms of legislative action. >> [inaudible] >> i'm not going to get -- again, i think there's a variety of ideas. there are a variety of ideas that have been put forward publicly, and obviously the vice president's crew was listening to a lot of these groups and hearing their ideas. but it's up to the vice president and president to decide what combination of things she wants to proceed with. and i will let him make that announcement. >> the rumor is the president could do certain things that others have raised concerns that there may be lawsuits that what the mother works. is that a concern for the administration? >> without getting into specifics, we'll get all consequences of actions that could be taken including consequences of promoting legislation in congress and other kinds of things. but that is a broad assessment that i am making, and you know, i don't know the specifics that you were mayor bloomberg may be
referring were the critics may suggest or have people having concerns about the response might be to some kind of action. that is all speculative until we know what the president will put forward. >> anything on the wal-mart reversal and their decision to mauro? >> well, i've seen reports, and i can simply say that we as a part of this effort led by vice president biden invited a broad array of groups and individuals to participate in these meetings and conversations and welcome the participation as everyone who accepts those invitations. so it's important that we hear from these stakeholders and i know the vice president and his team look forward to all the meetings that they are going to have. >> the speaker of the house has made it perfectly clear that he is willing to increase the debt ceiling, but the principle is for every dollar of investment increased, a dollar of spending must be cut. given that you are saying that the white house will not
negotiate on raising the debt ceiling, are you willing to accept that principal from the speaker, a dollar in cuts for every dollar increase? >> i think the president has been very clear that his principles that we need to reduce the deficit in a balanced way that does not shift of the burden for the cuts explosively on senior citizens, on families that have disabled children, on families that are trying to send their kids to school. that's just unacceptable. one of the things we learned in the process we just went through late last year is that when it comes to specificity, we never saw any specificity from the public, and in terms of how exactly they would achieve the kinds of sweeping cuts they say they want, and they would demand that payment, and with the president has been very clear about is he will not negotiate on congress's responsibility to
pay its bills. he will negotiate and is willing to compromise as he has demonstrated repeatedly when it comes to moving forward in a balanced way to reduce our deficit. we have to deal with the sequestered. we have to deal with a variety of budgetary and economic and fiscal challenges. but he will not negotiate over the debt ceiling. and the threat itself is a problem. as we saw in the summer of 2011, by mary choice of republicans seem to want to present to the american public is either we get medicare and social security, or we tank the global economy. i'm not an indication structure for the speaker of the house or the senate minority leader but i would think selling that would be very hard. >> let me understand how this works. you say you will not negotiate on this issue. they produce something and they say they will that cuts a dollar for every dollar increase in use
a you won't negotiate that? this is where they say they are going to go forward. >> i mean, so words are not action and there has been to this day very little specificity. since the ryan plan lacking specifics to be we are going to voucher medicare and tank the global economy they should say so. that is unacceptable to the american people and unacceptable to the president. look, here's the thing. congress has the authority to authorize money, right? not the president. congress racked up these bills. congress has to pay these bills. we are very interested in a discussion and negotiation about getting our fiscal house in order. this president has already signed into law a $2 trillion in the bill. he's eager to do so in a balanced way. but it is not appropriate to, in this president's view, to say
that if i don't get what i want, i'm not going to raise the debt limit. that is basically saying i will abandon the history of the united states maintaining the full faith and credit of its currency and its treasury by refusing to pay bills because i didn't get what i want politically and that isn't acceptable to the president. >> you say you are not going to negotiate -- >> we are not going to negotiate. if congress wants to give president the responsibility to raise the debt ceiling, she would take it as we saw with in 2010 or, i forget, there's been so many of these confrontations and in 2011 when the so-called mcconnell plan was adopted. but they assigned themselves this responsibility. the fact that they, you know, assigned it to them is something they have to deal with. they assigned it to themselves and they have to act without
drama or delayed raise the debt ceiling. there is plenty of opportunity outside of threatening the full faith and credit of the united states. to date fundamental differences over our economic and fiscal policy proposals, but it is not why is -- of wise to do better on raising the debt ceiling or around the simple principle that we, the united states of america, pay our debt. >> let me talk about chuck hagel who is criticized today by cardin by a conservative here. in the mainstream of the democratic party in the senate. one of the things she raised is the comment chuck hagel made about james harnel. i'm wondering if you can help me understand. she made those comments 15 years ago and didn't apologize for them until a month ago it was
clear that he was named secretary of defense. why is there that kind of a delay and did he explain why 50 years of those comments -- >> i think that senator chuck hagel was very clear that he thought those comments were not appropriate. he regretted them and they don't represent the to tell the of his views. i would point to the statement that he made. senators will have an opportunity for the confirmation process as they do traditionally and routinely to ask him questions about his views on the issues. the secretary of defense, senator hagel, when he is confirmed, as we hope he will become carried out the president's policies. and i think the president's policies on lgbt issues are most commendable, supported by the lgbt community, and will be and continue to be the policies of this administration as long as president obama is an office. so, again, i think you have seen what senator hagel said about
this and, you know, the president is very confident that senator hagel will be confirmed and that he will be an excellent secretary of defense and will implement all of the president's policies with regard to the defense department. >> let me move around here. >> on the debt ceiling, i know your position hasn't changed on the 14th amendment. do you have a position on this trillion dollar investment? >> uh, would simply go back to what i said. the option here is for congress to do its job and pay its bills, bills that have already been racked up. you know, we saw it happen last summer, the summer of 2011 and congress flirted with the idea of default. they didn't even go all the way to be false and yet the impact on our economy was severely impact, the impact on families less severe.
we had the lowest job creation in the month of august, 2011 in any month during the recovery coming into the reason is because of what house republicans did that summer. now, we can't do that again. so let's not even pretend that that is in no case scenario -- okay scenario. >> on the 14th amendment you said you do not have the power. do you believe you have this power to -- >> on plan b, there is no backup plan. it is congress's responsibility to pay the bills of the united states. this is not about future spending. we will have that debate and continue to have the debate about the budgets that we design and the path forward in the deficit reduction. and the president's principles in this matter are very clear. you know, there is no alternative to congress raising the debt ceiling. it is its responsibility.
congress has to pay the bills of the united states. that is an obligation that they assigned to themselves. >> a little evasive in your answer. are you trying to leave room or not -- >> there is no substitute for congress extending the borrowing authority of the united states. >> is there an option -- >> i think the only option is there is no backup plan. the only option is for congress to do its job. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i speculate about a lot of things, the but nothing needs to come to these kinds of, you know, speculative notions about how to deal with a problem that is easily resolved by congress doing its job. very simply coming back and having the discussion and conversation and negotiation and debate about how we can continue to bring down the debt in a way that is responsible and allows the economy to grow and protect the middle class to continue the
54 months of job creation that we have had during this recovery. that's the conversation and the debate and negotiation that is correct to have. that's the conversation and negotiation and debate the american people expect us to have. they don't expect washington -- and in this case congress coming and really in this case one house of congress -- to do enormous harm to the economy for partisan reasons. >> i wonder -- the front page of "the new york times" the staff with the president -- "the new york times" caption. the president was embarrassed that there was a picture of his suppose it senior staff -- >> well, first of all as you know, and i would point you to the content of the story as opposed to the head line of the photograph -- the president's senior staff here, women are well represented in the
president's senior staff here. two of the three deputies, deputy chiefs of staff are women. the white house counsel is a woman. a woman runs homeland security for this country. secretary napolitano. there are -- you know, there is -- the cabinet secretary in charge of the most important piece of domestic policy legislation in a generation as a woman, kathleen sebelius. and again i would point you to "the new york times" story itself that makes a point that the white house staff is 50/50 in its analysis. and as i said, including valerie jaret they serve as the due to what the administration and i forgot to mention the director of domestic policy, cecilia munoz, white house personnel director nancy. and again, this president is committed to diversity and look at a record.
it is a vast improvement. -- these stories are in reaction to a couple of appointments. >> -- treasury, although i know you're not -- >> these stories are the reaction to a couple of appointments. i think it would be useful to wait and make judgments about this issue after the president has made the to tell the appointments that he will make in the transition. >> when you look at the cabinet, there is the quote on quote [inaudible] >> the one that shows the secretary of state is a woman and the person that is nominated is a man is the issue. janet napolitano is with homeland security. the cabinet level position, you an ambassador. the ambassador to the united nations is susan rice. again i could go through the list. this president has made two appointments to the supreme court. both of them were women. and i'd think his commitment to
-- >> [inaudible] >> well i think the record speaks for itself, and certainly that photograph is not reflective of the diversity within the white house staff or within the broad administration. and i think, again, i would urge everyone who only got to the head line of the photograph to read the story. the story documents the comparative here with not just president bush and i compare the increase was representation of women in senior positions is dramatic. it is consistent with or greater than president clinton's staff as well. and when it comes to judges, 47% of president obama's confirm the judges, and we have an issue with confirmation in the senate as you know, but 47% of those confirmed have been women compared to 22% for president george w. bush and 29% for president clinton. so i think the record here speaks for itself. >> when you say the totality, the others went the other cabinet appointments it sounds
like in the next -- >> i have no personnel. [laughter] >> about there is diversity taken into account? >> i answered this question a couple times this weekend the president believes diversity is important because having diversity increases the excellence of the pool of advisers around you, the pool of the staff you have come and i think that has been demonstrated by the kind of, you know, the degree of talent that he has around him now and has had around him in the first term and i think it would be true in the second term. yes? >> can you tell house democrats held a 14th amendment should be used and why they are wrong? >> we answered this question at that time. i just said again we don't believe it provides the authority that some believe it does. but the point here is because of a resistance to the reality that congress has a responsibility to
pay the bills that it has racked up, we shouldn't be pursuing these kinds of options. congress should simply do its job. the american people are tired of this sort of approach to governance. i mean, i think we have seen some polls recently that demonstrate that. it is time for the congress to get back to doing the business the people elected them to do. >> on that point, the house republican conference suggested an incremental approach. autrey months to extend the debt limit. is that something the white house isn't going to negotiate comfortably with? >> again, i'm not going into specifics. but the idea that we should play this game every month, you think that's -- this is the united states of america. the idea that we would send a message around the world and around the country that we are going to have a debate about whether we should be felt every month or every two months? i think it would be extremely
harmful to the economy and harmful to the middle class in this country. so as we've said in the past, you're trying to negotiate with me and i will do that. that sounds like a terrible idea to me. some of the president would reject -- >> again it's a highly skeptical thing -- testiculate tiffin. ki would negotiate and i want to either. >> condra -- >> that is the negotiating position over something that we are not going to negotiate over. the congress needs to do its job. >> on the gun control, those who support what the president has already asked congress to do, consider that a rather aggressive agenda, and that gets through congress. that is their set -- >> is the biden group looking beyond those things that already identified the gun control initiatives and the goals of this administration on the gun control meaning an agenda that would be even broader than those
that have experienced in the trenches of this kind of battle prissy as difficult enough as it is. >> the president has made clear that he would like to see congressional action on the floor of the items that i mentioned. i do not have a preview for you of the other actions that the president may or may not punish either congressional action or other kinds. i will let him as the vice president first and the president make this kind of announcement. >> does he seem to be subject to all kinds of interpretation, when the vice president talked about executive orders, is that in the context specifically related to the gun control issues he is looking at? >> i don't have an elaboration. i will point you to what the vice president says and it's the approach the president is taking, which is to look at every way we can both here in the united states and beyond to address the problem that i think we all acknowledge we have.
when 6-year-olds and 7-year-olds are gunned down in their own school there is a problem that we need to address and it isn't just the gun control problem. it goes beyond that as the president said, and that's why if the effort the president has been leading is looking at the totality of the problem and a broad array of actions that could be taken to help address the problem and it is a difficult problem and it is difficult on this issue and has been traditionally difficult to get things done and that is part of your question but as the president said. but we simply cannot not tried because it's hard. the problem is too important said he will know from him when he is ready to make some decisions. mike and then john? >> on the gun issue are the dropping by any of these issues with stakeholders to go face-to-face on these different groups coming in to meet with the vice president?
>> .. have i don't eept. he will be dropping by any meetings. of course, that could change, if he decides. he obviously has conversations separate from the meetings with the vice president is leading. and talking about these issues and many others when he has the conversations. >> the debt ceiling, you said
you're not going to negotiate. republicans are saying they have to cut. how are we not heading for a washington-created cliff of some sort? >> well, here are the facts. we have to rise the debt ceiling. they said it's inconceivable we would default, and that's one issue. and that is an issue that is congress' responsibility and they need to fulfill that responsibility and make sure that the united states of america as it has throughout the existence ens raise the bills. we continue to have challenges embodied in one instance by the sequester that we need to resolve in concert with congress. and the need to do that presents an opportunity to in a balanced way achieve further significant
deficit reduction. the president, as you know, twice now has pursued a big deal with speaker boehner that in its totality would have achieved over $4 trillion in deficit reduction over a decade. because of the nature of those negotiations, and the inability of the speaker to in the end reach a comprise with the president, we have found ourselves needing to take smaller steps in pursue that overall goal. the goal remains one that the president believes is the right one. he hopes that in dealing with our further budgetary and fiscal challenges that he will be able to reach an agreement with congress to further reduce our deficit in a balanced way and most importantly, deficit is not a worthy goal unto itself. it's about making our economy stronger and making it more
productive and allowing it to create even more jobs. i mean, that's the most important thing when it comes to economic policy as far as the president is concerned. >> if we're down to the last moment, have you researched a way of bypassing this process? >> that's another way of asking questions about the amendments and coins and articles. again, there are no plan b.'s here. i know, plan b's is a bad phrase these days. you know, the fact of the matter, it's a simple process. congress assigned it the responsibility of raising the debt ceiling. it's about pass spending not future spend. it's about paying our bills. and congress has that responsibility. congress needs to fulfill it. john, yep? yes, sir? >> thank you, jay. happy new year. >> and to you. >> all right. you talked about plan without spes isty. a number of the freshman republican that i talked to
actually talked about dusting off the simpson bowls plan and introducing legislation. i believe freshman qualm from texas said he's going proceed in that. what is the administration's reaction? >> the position the president continues to have on the commission he created was that it provided a very important framework to move -- forward on deficit reduction. i don't know, i trust your reporting about the interest of some house republicans in putting that forward. i would be interesting to hear what chairman ryan has to say since he sat on the simpson bowls commission and they voted no. it's important remember, i think a lot of people when they talk about the commission the president set up, the commission called for significantly higher revenue than the president has called for. and significantly deeper defense consult than the president called for.
and actually in the first ten years, fewer savings from the entitlement program than the president called for. when you get to the details of it, you have to wonder whether or not support for the republicans would be there. it certainly wasn't there when the commission was taking its votes. . yes? >> [inaudible] has president seen zero dark thirty yet? -- [inaudible] what was the reaction. >> i don't know. i haven't asked him if he's seen it or not. so i don't know the reaction. >> can i revisit the nonnegotiabling question
probably not going to answer. [laughter] >> to ruin the question. so doesn't that mean that he's betting that congress will raise the debt ceiling? yms otherwise . >> the president believes that it's congress' responsibility raise the debt ceiling. he hopes that congress will exercise that responsibility
without drama or delay. he understands that there are further issues that we need to work with congress on when it comes to getting our fiscal house in order. they have to be separate from the responsibility to pay bills that congress already racked up. and, you know, i like to to this because i was around when it happened. but it's instructive to remember when we're talking about who is responsible, when it comes to getting our fiscal house in order and reducing our deficits, and, you know, you can look at the graphs here about when deficits went up and when they went down. they up in the '80s and went down after president clinton took office. and went up and massive surpluses under bush. we had the economic financial crisis the like which none of us has experienced. that exacerbated our deficit and they have been coming down on president obama. he's very serious about responsible deficit reduction.
he has signed in to law significant deficit reduction already, but he insists we do it in a balanced way because he does not believe it's fair to ask only some sectors of the population, seniors, children who have disabled parents, kids trying go to college to bear the burden alone of the kinds of choices we need make. that's why he hopes to engage congress, republicans and democrats alike, in a process that leads to more deficit reduction that includes the kind of balance that was enshrined in the agreement recently reached over the fiscal cliff. >> [inaudible] what leverage he would have since he's not going to negotiate with them. he pointed to the business community in hopes they would brick pressure to bear on the republicans. do you see that happening? >> from the business community i would be surprised if anybody in the world of finance or business
in this country or anywhere would welcome the perspective of default. i would expect they would, you know, i would hope they would make that opinion known. >> i'm asking other than you standing here day after day saying the president won't negotiate and the reasons you're giving. other than the rhetorical effort, what release you doing, can you do to make sure that congress lives up to the responsibility? >> well, we can't -- because congress has retained for its this responsibility, an obligation, they have to act. if they want to pass it to a more willing actor, the president of the united states, he will gladly ensure that we do not default. the fact of the matter is, congress has that responsibility. and congress has to act. >> right. you've said that. >> i'm not sure what you're saying. >> i'm asking with, what else can you do since you ruled out negotiating to bring pressure to bear on them, you do this all the time when you want something
to happen. you call on the outside actors, you try get the public opinion standing here over and over again saying you're not negotiating. what else is the white house doing to get them to pass it? >> i can't predict everything we will do. it is simple demon sense that we hope that leaders in congress will not default, and in the end, they will do what is right, which is ensure we do not default. in the meantime, we have other important issues to resolve with congress, other important fiscal and economic budgetary issues to address with congress. question address those. negotiating over raising the debt ceiling is not in the cards. >> [inaudible] talk about the man everybody in. did the president see the highlights with the -- [inaudible] in the season you heard whether
he should have been in the game. what is your personal opinion of the red skins. >> you're frying to get many me -- you're trying to get me in trouble. i know, that the president like so many sports fans follow the remarkable season that rg3 had. i have not had a discussion since the game about the terrible outcome. i did see in a -- yesterday somebody forwarded me a tweet from the union, so i'm not sure it's true. that mike shan han cleared rg3 to carry furniture down the step. >> it was painful to watch. and i'm not a football coach, but it sure seemed like as remarkable player as he is, he wasn't in a position to continue playing. i just got myself in trouble
there. >> of course. the debt ceiling again. so last time the white house was looking far $1.2 trillion increase, how much of an increase would you like to see this time. not negotiating which is -- to increase. >> as you know, in the process that we just went through over the so-called fiscal cliff. the president in good faith, negotiated or tried to with the speaker of the house, and in that process lowered his target for revenue significantly, came as they say, half way toward the republicans between the 800 billion that speaker boehner was offering in the 1.6 trillion that the president had initially requested, and that figure was $1.2. something very important occurred, which is the fiscal cliff deal which ensured that higher income americans would either see their income tax top
rate turn to -- return to the level of the clinton ear are a. through that a significant amount of revenue has been achieved. it's not enough now anymore than it was when we talked about the reason for achieving enough revenue $1.2 trillion in order to allow for the essential balance that would combine the spending cuts and savings from interest, and the like that would allow for that deficit reduction over ten years. it remains our position and the president spoke about that. we need to going forward in deficit reduction achieve it through a balance of both revenue and spending cuts. i don't have specific figures for you. our position is what it is. >> yes? >> [inaudible] the spoach on sunday and today a -- [inaudible]
through the process after this speech so it seems that after two months things are look even worse than ever before. what is your step forward from this point? >> i'll say a few things, the speech by al-assad was indeed evidence of how delusional he is. the proposal he made was nothing more than a desperate attempt to cling to power. if would only allow the regime to killing the oppression and killing of the syrian people. the momentum in syria is with opposition forces and with the syrian people. it's clear as defections continue and we have seen a number of them, and the regime continues to lose control of territory, that assad cannot restore his control of syria.
the future in syria does not and will not include bashar al-assad. he has all legitimate sei and he must step aside to end the bloodshed. the united states will continue the support for the agree knee have a action group framework endorsed by the five permanent of the u.n. security council, the arab league within and the u.n. generally assembly. we will continue our support to build international support for the framework and all parties in syria to take steps toward the implement takes to help expedite an end to the suffering of the syrian people. and bring about the day when the syria people can decide their future for themselves. >> and basically you -- the last with years, actually.
many argue -- arming the rebel. and the fact that you talk about the rebels continuing gain power on the ground is being done mostly lead by -- [inaudible] other groups that your government has been labeled? >> i think it's a good point to make our point which is that our position regarding lethal support has not changed. we are not providing it. we continue to take a hard look at every -- doing so would advance the goal of political transition in syria. in other words we look at the feasible option and base them whether or not we believe the goal would be achieved. we firmly believe that a political solution lead by the people and support bid the international community is the
best chance for a stable democratic syria. we don't believe that providing arms will promote a political solution. i would argue on the first point about the policy, we have over time ramped up our assistance to the syrian people through humanitarian aid, we have ramped up our non-lethal assistance to the syrian opposition, we have, as you know, recognized the syrian transitional group as a legitimate representative of the syrian people. these are our steps that demonstrate movement in the policy toward isolating assad, further assisting the opposition. we don't -- for the right policy. yeah? and then donnavan. >> reporter: the immigration over reform that are worried that the administration's efforts on gun violence is going to push off immigration reformed. you talked or -- something the
post inauguration. i'm wondering -- i don't believe we have given a specific time frame. i would point you to the president's commitment to do it early in the -- to take action early in the second term. beyond that i won't be specific. i can assure you that it is a taupe priority of this president. it is something he will act on as he is promised. >> reporter: can we expect to hear that in the state of the union or the gnawing really a? i would say broadly speaking the state of the union addresses tend to include at least a sample of a president's agenda, and immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform is a high priority of the president's. but i don't want to get ahead of the speech. yep? sorry. >> reporter: the reports recently . >> then donnavan. i know, i said before.
go ahead. >> reporter: cyberattacks by iran -- the security expert saying there's no doubt within the u.s. government what they call diagonal of service attacks. is that come to the president's attention or can you talk . >> i don't know whether that report has -- i don't have anything ton for you you might district that question to the. >> i want to get followup on the nra. is there a belief that the nra will be a hurnld to new gun legislation. how does the president plan to get around that? >> i don't want to and the president doesn't want to rejudge the action of organizations of groups who are stake holders in this discussion. he hopes that in the after math of newtown that, you know, we are in a place that appropriate
action both legislative and through other means can be taken and will be supported broadly. you certainly have seen with the number of the measures that the proposed legislation represent, there is broad support of publicly for those kinds of action. and broad support among gun owners, broad support of the members of the very organization that you mentioned. so we'll have to see what happens as the process moves forward. the president will certainly push for passage of the legislation he supports. but obviously congress has to act when it comes to legislation, and we all as a nation need to make sure our voices are heard when it comes to our position on the kinds of measures sensible measures question take to address this problem. >> reporter: and outreach to the american people and hashtag maybe? >> i won't get ahead of the process here. but the spt committed, as he has
said to taking action. he looks forward to the recommendations from the vice president. [inaudible] a lot of -- [inaudible] about syrians killed between 40 to 67 syrians are killed. you don't see -- you have the moral obligation to stop what is happening in syria? >> as we have discussed repeatedly, we find bashar al-assad's attacks on his own people the mass killing of his own people to be a qarnt. the action he's taken ensure his place in history as a tyrant with an enormous amount of blood on his hands, syrian blood. we have taken significant action to isolate assad, to put pressure on assad, to help the
opposition against assad unify. to provide humanitarian relief to the syrian people, and we are working every day with our international partners and unilaterally to help bring about the day when assad and his tyranny are no longer. and i take your point that the situation in syria is terrible and responsibility for that situation belongs to the man who claims that he represents the people he's killing. >> reporter: [inaudible] president obama -- antigay views and attributed from the time -- [inaudible] therapy interpreted to people be executed and christians to firmly respond to the aggressive agenda and prevent the homosexualized -- [inaudible]
so i . >> i haven't seen the report. will refer you to the inauguration committee. >> the administration isn't aware of it? >> i'm saying i haven't seen the report. >> the president nominated chuck hagel and the antigay comments. is there a statute of limitations -- [inaudible] >> i think i've addressed the question about senator hagel. i would point you to president obama's record on lgbt issues as representative of his beliefs and convictions. his policy and where he believes this country is moving and where he hopes to lead it. >> reporter: a question. i heard unequivocally rule out using the amendment. you did not rule out of the
trillion dollar point idea. does the white house rule out the trillion dollar . >> i would you refer to you to treasure i i are for the specific of question. i can tell you that the president doesn't believe there is a backup plan or a plan or offramp. the only viable option here is congress the bill -- congress fulfills the responsibility and ensures the united states of america pays its bills as it always paid its bills throughout its history. >> rule out xiv amendment not the trillion dollar coin amendment. >> there are no plan b. i refer you to the treasury for, you know, . >> [inaudible] >> it is tiny ofest of opening. i would not do that. >> i don't analysis here of every, you know, idea that is thrown out. i can tell you that the president . >> somebody back there trying to -- [inaudible] >> again, not that i know of.
the printing and minting you might want to ask the the treasury. the president's belief that congress needs to do their job. they need to pay the bill that they racked up, and we can continue to negotiate and debate over the important economic budgetary and fiscal challenges we face within the context of our budgets and our sequester and all the issues that confront us. but it is not acceptable to this president, and therefore he will not negotiate over the perspective of default. congress needs to do its job. [inaudible conversations] >> again, i think i answered it. [inaudible conversations]
>> a reminder that you can watch this and all our programming online at library. all this week we've been showing q & a programs. join us today at 6:00 p.m. eastern with michael hastings. he talking about the article he wrote in rolling san stone that lead to the resignation of general stanley crystal. the an hour later the focus on gretchen morgueson and her book that looked a the 2008 financial crisis. this year marks the 100th anniversary of richard nixon's birth. join us tonight mark an occasion. it's live on c-span two at 8:30 p.m. eastern. >> i think that collectivization of the minds of america's founding fathers is particularly
dangerous because as i said so often in the book, they were not a collective unit. presenting them as such tends to dramatically oversimplify the politics of the founding generation. it comes to be used as a big battering ram to beat people over the head with. in ways that i think are historic . >> new nann newman university professor the deep frau by conservative commentators. he shares the view with george washington university associate professor of law. on tuesday, the conservation leadership council hosted a discussion focusing on environmental policy and conservation efforts.
speakers include former entire your secretary and colorado attorney general gale norton, along with former governor of north dakota and agricultural secretary ed schafer. lynn scarlett, a former deep tear secretary moderates the panel. it's an hour and fifteen minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. we're going go ahead and get started. i'm lynn scarlett former deep tear secretary of the u.s. department of the interior under the previous administration. i see many, many, many faces. it's wonderful to be in such a great crowd. i'm delighted that you're all here at this conservation and stewardship conference. this meeting put on by the
conservation leadership council. i want to remind everybody this is an open public meeting. we're delighted that c-span is here. they are recording the event. they'll be broadcasting it live to the website at and they will also be airing this later on television during the course of the day. i'd like to encourage all of you also to visit the conservation leadership council website after the meeting and over the course of the next weeks, that website is there you will see the members of the conservation leadership council, you'll see all of the papers and by the way, you have on the tables in front of you a booklet that has the published first six papers put out by the council. we're going start with some presentations today, but ultimately what we want, and we have lots of time for it we're
going have a facilitated discussion. i'm going to be phil donahue or opera winfrey or somebody. and get you to converse and discussion. yes, by all means, if you have questions to secretary norton or secretary schafer, please do direct them here. but we are really going to try and get a conversation. before i get the stuff rolling, i would like the council members that are here in the audience to stand up. we have, of course, ed schafer and gale norton here at the podium. several of you in the audience on the council. if you would stand, i would appreciate that. thank you very much for your great work in this effort. to get the show rolling, i'd like to introduce secretary norton. she's well known to many in this room if not all of you. she served as secretary of the
entire -- intire your from 2001 to 2006. i was privileged to serve as deputy secretary. she's back out in colorado and doing -- has her own firm and doing many other things and also, i think enjoying life a little bit. i'm not going give a big introduction because gale, you're so well known. so welcome. [applause] >> good morning, it's terrific to see many people here. we have many more people than we were initially expecting. it's wonderful to have you and wonderful to have so many friends i've known for years here in the audience today. the leadership council -- addressing the nation's environmental challenges through the application of conservative principle and ideas, trying to find ways in which we can have
approaches that are comfortable for conservatives and accomplish environmental goals. the conservation leadership council is a group of business executives, former government officials, public policy experts, and community leaders. we come from a variety of background. but one in common enthusiasm. i'm going provide an overview of the council, why it is needed, how it started, what it's done so far, and something about what we hope to accomplish. stewardship is a core and lasting american value. yet in today's dialogue about how to exercise that ethic, some of america's strongest principles and ideas that can sustain our natural heritage and prosperity have not been
considered. we believe many of the best solutions to the country's environmental challenges would be found in market-oriented policy, public/private partnership and bot ups up solutions. that. i have been demonstrated in many local initiative. when i was secretary of the entire your i had the opportunity travel around and meet with people who are involved in local conservation efforts. who brought together neighbors to discuss their problems to hash out their different perspectives and find ways of protecting their local communities and environment. we call to that approach cooperative conservation. i still think that's a great title. we wanted to see that spread across the country. the political landscape has shifted in the last few years. as someone who served in washington, i'm familiar with gridlock and partisanship.
but unfortunately, i think that has risen to massive levels today. ironically, it is that atmosphere of distrust that helps stimulate the creation of the conservation leadership council. we believe that there are good ideas that can transcend politics. the comprise is an unpopular word. and for today's conservatives, it has the connotation of abandoning one's principles. the conservation leadership council is not about that approach. the conservation leadership council looks for fresh proposals that can reach environment goals while finding mechanisms that conservative and libertarians can embrace. the council's first activity was to solicit idea from across the country from think tanks, universities, from people involved in the trenches on
conservation projects. we sought authors who could present fresh idea, reflecting the council's limited government approach. instead of environment proposals based on command and control, we sought proposals harnessing the power of the marketplace to encourage greerpship and innovation. instead of big government regulation, we look for ways to bring communities together. instead of raising government's spending, we searched for ways to save taxpayers money while still providing outdoor recreation and environment values. instead of destroying jobs and economic opportunity, we sought ways to provide the regulatory certainty that encourages investment. while meeting environmental goals effectively. we received many excellent proposals, and some of them are captured today in the book that we are releasing, this contains
several of our policy papers. these papers are also available on our website leading with the policy papers compliment the series of conservation round tables that we have held around the country. the first of those round tables highlighted on the ground solutions in denver, colorado, my hometown. we had people discussioning conservation of land and ways to protect wildlife has been habitat. in september there was another round table that focused on habitat training credit and economical ways to conservative public land. the third held in georgia emphasized water quantity and the infrastructure that is necessary to preserve america's access to clean water. as time goes on, we expect to host other round tables around the country.
they already given us the opportunity to learn from experienced people what the variety of views. and help improve our proposals. today's session is going to have a familiar format. the council is an organization that intended to stimulate brain brainstorming and debate and destruction of ideas. we have a generally shared political philosophy. we don't center any requirement that our members agree in complete lox step. accordingly not every member of the council endorses every paper. we want to share a variety of ideas. while the council members themselves are conservative or lanes, we welcome the opportunity to work with others in finding how our approaches can be implemented in the real world. we have been assisted in our effort by the not so conservative friends at environmental defense spot. and we thank them for their
efforts. several other environmental organizations are represented here today as well as individuals from industry, agricultural, government, and conservative organizations. we welcome input from all corners. the council's role as a conservative voice for environmental protection is important in today's economic situation. local and state agencies face another year of budget cuts. fortunately, our marketplace-oriented approach can provide some help and solutions. it's especially important here in washington as congress is grappling with ways to deal with the federal budget. we want to provide approaches that can protect the environment without major government expenditures. let me share a very simple example. i was reading a magazine article the other day, and i thought
this is a very simple and straightforward approach that everybody can understand. local and state governments own thousands of miles and thousands of acres, millions of acres of land in the rights way along the rural roads. kansas alone has over 20,000 miles of roads that have vegetation along the sides. that provides has been at a habitat for birds and small animals, it provides wild flowers and native grasses the opportunity to flourish. but in most places, the approach is to go through a number of times a year and moe -- mow that down which destroys the habitat. the kansas autobonn society calculated that changing the mowing pattern to do less often
would save taxpayers money while a win for the environment. that's not one of our specific proposals, but it's the kind of idea and fresh thinking that we welcome. one of our papers that is announced today directly addresses local and state government problems. many parks that are operated by governments that are facing cutbacks or even shut downs. there are experiences with contracting out management of some park activities, and our authors have traced that experience and have really put together some practical proposals for local governments and state governments that might be looking at those kinds of things. our proposals explore ways of working within the regulatory system to allow economic activity while meeting environmental goals in less cumbersome ways.
you'll hear one of the proposals later this morning. others may incident i will say better government funding but encourage better results through cooperative activity. again, i want to thank you all for participating, and i look forward to hearing your thoughts and ideas today. [applause] >> thank you, secretary norton. now i'd like to introduce former governor of north dakota and secretary of the u.s. department of agricultural, ed schafer. [applause] >> thank you for joining us today. i hope that you have a chance to have breakfast. we have rolls and coffee and juices and water and everything over there. feel free to get up and have some food, leave, talk to your neighbor, chuckle, clink your glasses.
as former governor i'm used to addressing the legislature. [laughter] anyway, we are pleased to have you here today. this is is from the book "rash life and hunting trail" my home ranch lies on both sides of the little missouri. the nearest ranch man above me being about 12 and the nearest ten miles distance. the generally course of the stream is northerlily but while flowing through my ranch it taking westerly reach walled in as always between chain of steep high bluffs half mile omar apart. it twists through the valley in long sweeps leaving ohio valley wooded -- and open thick growing timber stands the house of human logs. from the longer haveer have ran d.a. they look across sand bar to a strip of meadow land behind
which rises a line of sheer cliff and grassy patterns inspect is a pleasant lace in the summer evening when a cool breeze blows in the faces of tired men. who sit back in the rocking chair for what a true american doesn't enjoy a rocking chair? book in hand, though they do not often read the books but rock gently gazing sleepily out at the weird looking opposite until the sharp outlines go distinct in the sunset. these are the words written by though door roosevelt. the time of the growing realization of the ideal of conservation and preservation. it was later, however, during his time as governor of new york when that vision of those bluffs and the water came to be.
in new york when he was dealing with a society of concrete and steel and generated by trading future of dutch toll lip. ,s or something. he came to understand the foundational strength of the land and soil in the natural resource. he was worried about the character of americans. he thought that the character and values that are instilled in people, the moral courage and justice and the hard work ethic and the self-sufficiency that comes in the end from working of the soil. tr sensed that the frontier produced the american character and started thinking about the responsibilities of preserving the product capacity of our lands. he had started the club. it is represented fad on the
council by -- i think he'll going to be here. i don't see him. you know, he understood that promoting good stewardship of the land was important and to promote good stewartship how they interact he felt the only way to ensure that would be to create voluntary organizations that would see to that good stewardship. tr was elected to presidency of the united states and became known among many things as the conservation president. it was his vision as president that jump started the conservation and preservation movement in this country, as we gather here today, we continue on with that effort to develop public policy that promotes the same ideals as tr did long ago.
i come from western north dakota, and i have the privilege of being able to ab absorb the beauty and strength that roosevelt experienced as i walk on the very same lands and see the same views that he did so long ago. it was my time as governor of the state of north dakota that i started to understand how public policy can be used to nudge along the same ideals and to help us conservative the foundations of our country. i remember well when i was chair of western governor's association, group of eighteen states that goes right from the center of the country west. very involved in natural resource issues, we were sheparding the grand canyon visibility study. i was shocked when a regional epa administrator came in and
was promoting the idea that north dakota should clean up our air better. i pointed out that north dakota was the first state to meet the clean air standards, and that was a midst mining and farming and coal and fired-power plants but she couldn't disagree with that. however, her theory was if north dakota were to super clean the air, that it would blow down through the central corridor and help clean up the air in the visibility in the grand canyon. we had quite a conversation about that, but it was really then -- [laughter] that i understood that if we've going to be serious about the environment, about conservation, about preserving the productive catch of our land and our natural resources, that you can't be sitting in a cubicle in washington, d.c.
you can't be in the office and the cap a toll or bismarck north dakota. you have to be on the land and among the people who are there, who are producing and energizing and using that land. be close to those who work the soil, and who recover our natural resources for the benefit of our economy and our citizens, and who work on issues that are sustainable and affordable. one size fits all top down government conservation programs just are not going work. if we really want to going? about the environment -- do something about the environment we have to seek solutions that are broad based, acceptable, and work to gain the public will and the public support to put them in place. that is what lead us here today. with the understanding of the strength and our natural resources gale and i were able to come together with a perspective of the department of interior and the department of
united states department of agricultural. the agency departments that are responsible for the overseeing of the development and the use and the strong capacity of the beautiful foundations in our country. the conservation leadership council has been hard at work to develop conservative input to public policy. we have been having conversations about voluntary marketplace and incentivized program that can actually make a difference. we seek your conversation today on those issues. as we have put the council together and worked over this last year, it really has become an issue as your state, your community, your organization need the flexibility in finding solutions that are based on global conditions and local issues and needs.
we believe that generating and supporting local solutions are what is going help that develop broad-based public support faster than you can from the top-down approach with tough programs. mayor ron littlefield of tennessee said in one of our round table in augusta, georgia. it's important that different regions learn and even borrow workable solutions from each other. question did b a bsh -- we can be a clearing house of good idea and share solutions that worked in other parts of the country. this helps avoid past mistakes, but it also provides solid evidence there is a solution that can work, and you can take to your councils and legislators and voters. it's important that the workable solutions get put on the table. we heard over and over and over
again how in our round table and in our scholarly paper the need to find the right balance between business and government. we created the conservation leadership partnership to evaluate and education mother alternative and entrepreneurial based solutions that can entice everybody, conservatives, liberals, rastafarian, whoever can be here. but the shared goal of scef conserving our environment. at the hilton head round table we heard about how the challenges that state fish and wildlife agencies are having today trying to manage public land with dwindling public funding and rigid federal rules and how he's searching in his state and looking for ideas like
the ones that the clc is promoting. we're helping explore solutions as secretary norton mentioned. one of the paper in your book is parks 2.0. authors less leonard gill roy, and julia morris at the r.n. foundation have explored the use of public/private partnership to compensate for budget shortfalls. in thinking about the governor's approach to -- or a governor's viewpoint in state's issues on conservation, go back to one of my predecessor in north dakota, governor lincoln. during the time in office he grappled with the expansion of coal mining and electrical generation during that time when it was being explored and developed and north dakota today
is a huge generator of electricity for many, many regional states. but he understood the economic value, the jobs an salary and taxes that are generated by this sector of the economy. and he wanted to make sure to promote and take advantage of it for north dakota. but he understood that if we are going protect our environment and preserve our strength, we had to do it from home. he said, i am unwilling to sacrifice our area to benefit the television and air conditioners of the east and west coast. he talked about when the landscape is quite again. how he wanted it to be in the future, and now as we're here we must dedicate ourself to the work of developing policies and programs that are workable, affordable, that are sustainable, so that we too can be involved in our input can be
involved in developing public policies that preserve and protect our wonderful land and natural resources. it's your experiences and your knowledge and your observations that we're looking for today. we look forward to your input, we know that you will help craft good public policy that will help keep our natural resources and land the way we want them to be. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, secretary schafer. and secretary doug dominique mentioned the and i saw a hand go up in the back corner. doug, thank you for being here. [applause] delighted to see you. [applause] i am delighted to join secretary norton and secretary schafer and members of the conservation leadership council here today. before we engage in our open
discussion, i'm going give a few additional remarks to provide detail of the papers and a little bit more flaser what the council is all about. in the headlines, environmental issues are barely a blip on the screen of political and policy dialogues amid the fury over the fiscal cliff. for many conservative, environmental issues often meet with resistance and concern concern that the issues are someone -- beyond the headlines the picture is more complex and encouraging. beyond the hmms the vast majority of americans those gathered here including conservatives value environmental protection, restoration, and enhancement as sec secretary schafer said.
fiscal responsibility, limited government, market entrepreneurship and innovation and personal accountability. many creative solutions spring from the application of conservative and market oriented concepts. conservation leadership council is putting these ideas before america in the congress the halls of state legislators, and among leaders. energy, water, air quality, natural hazards, outdoor recreation, healthy lands and wildlife, these are not democratic issues, they are not republican issues. these are issues for everyone in every community. consider how americans think about these matters. some 80% of those polled by gallop are concerned a great deal or a fair amount about river, lake, and reservoir solution and water supply issues.
76% remained a great deal about air pollution. even issues unrelated to human health poll fairly strongly. plant and animal extinction generate concerns among 65% of americans. let us ponder a few sobering health stakes of this nation. in the '70s just 5% of kids were overweight. today that number exceeds 33%. adult onset diabetes is now showing up in children. high blood pressure, high blood pressure is inflicting children. fewer than 10% of kids receive daily physical education. even fewer get outdoors. ..
ideas that can save money and address important environmental issues today we of a all the papers with these ideas. considered as secretary norton noted for parks and open space to serve those children i just
mentioned. to secure their links to nature. one author examines how private partnerships can keep parks open even in times of very tight state budgets. state parks attract some 725 million visitors each year. more even than our national parks as some thousand local sites. but many of these parks are in trouble with dtv rating infrastructure and shrinking public funds to sustain visitor services. public-private partnerships offer an idea potential to enhance park operations. over 100 u.s. forest service recreation sites already use this model. it is not a dream come it isn't something hypothetical. new york city's central park is operated by a nonprofit organization. california, california, my home state, is already moving forward
with the partnering concept for many of its parts. the author of the paper on state parks exports this option and how to address tough issues this is not easy to read how to address issues of quality, access, resource protection and other management challenges. several authors here today describe local partnerships among ranchers, land owners and state and federal agencies to enhance land health and wildlife populations. burnett and terrie, two of these authors are you today and they will be talking leader. they are authors but they are also do worse deeply engaged to solve problems. another author looks at energy efficiency and how to retrofit old buildings to save money and energy while dramatically reducing pollution and other emissions. in 2009 the mckinsey report estimates that a 520 billion-dollar investment in energy efficiency building
retrofits would yield savings in energy efficiency off 1.2 trillion by 2020. that is a win for the environment and for the economy. so, why don't those investments have been? the conservation leadership council author notes to challenges. first while returns on efficiency investments are positive, they may be lower than alternative investments. second, sometimes a and a winner that pays capital cost is not the building user who gains from lower energy cost deutsch efficiencies and operation. we describe opportunities to use creative sources of capital such as program related investments funded by foundations to pay for energy efficiency retrofits. another paper looks like markets in the context of coral reef offering ideas for investing in their protection. often overlooked the provide
logic for some 500 million people worldwide. but they are in decline. in some places those declines are dramatic. this plc authors look at user fees. they look at the nursery planting payments and other incentives for protecting and enhancing. some papers emerge for on the ground experiences. garrey burnett explains the partnership of the rangers and others. together they have conserved 120,000 acres under conservation easements assuring that those lands are available for wildlife and agriculture. they're saving water through irrigation efficiency programs. some of the papers may be springboards for thinking about the broad application of these ideas to other challenges. cities across the nation for example are looking for better,
cheaper, smarter ways to meet their infrastructure needs. sometimes, perhaps even often that means going natural, investing in the flood plain restoration, open space and permeable surfacing and watershed protection. costs to address natural disasters have steadily mounted in recent years. ecosystem protection and restoration often offer significant often cost-effective strategies for producing impact studies hazards. this nation can address many and for stricter and other environmental problems better cheaper, smarter and that is a message with broad bipartisan appeal. there's an old saying that the world is divided into two camps those that dwell on its imperfections and those that celebrate its working parts. the conservation leadership council was turning its sights to those working parts. policy tools and on the ground practices that can bring this nation and its communities clean
air, clean water, abundant wildlife, energy security and safe community tools are now which a nation of diverse people with diverse ideas can address significant environmental problems while sustaining a robust economy and thriving communities. now i'm going to end with those remarks and now it's your show. but i want to start by pointing to two of the authors that we have here in this audience. and i won this dialogue to be about test questions. all this market stuff is not easy. all this partnering doesn't flow smoothly. there are tough issues to address and think about as we try to apply these ideas. i'm going to turn first to terrie. he's on the conservation leadership council and he's the author of one of our papers.
there's a conundrum that your paper presents. on the one hand, it's all about trying to build markets in the context of protecting a dangerous species come and get those markets in many respects are built on a foundation of a regulatory structure, the endangered species act. so, how do you see the blending of those to concept on the one hand markets, and on the other, the regulatory conditions that make them possible coming together. and if you stand -- by the way, when i call on people, please do stand and wait for the microphone to come to you so that we can hear you and catch you live on the air. >> thanks. it's a really good question, and it's a question dividing all of us in this room have an interest in or we wouldn't be here. and we struggle with the notion of how do we create those
situations. and - to bachelet accurately captured the notion is the time is now. there is a time for discussion and there is a time for action. and i think with our membership, with producers, landowners and colorado realize is there's almost a million acres of agricultural land in this country that's managed by one, less than 1% of the population. and is a tremendous conservation reserve -- reservoir. they understand the challenges of regulatory environment specifically in this case the endangered species act and how they can participate, and it's necessary for them to participate in the recovery of the species. the big challenge is how do you do that in a way that landowners will trust and engage at a level that's meaningful. i think we all recognize that. so, that was a question the challenge our membership and many states memberships in the
cattleman's organizations are being challenged today and one of the notions that we really understand and believe in is these market-based programs. we are a commodity based industry. we deal with contracts and with agreements every day. we are performance based, we don't survive. and why can't we apply that model to something like conservation. why can't we go out and look at something like the greater stage drought or look at a tortoise or fish and engage land owners through incentives but also at the same time some assurances that their actions are going to actually be performance based but also recognized into the future. through that notion we are trying to develop in essence an exchange in colorado that engages the regulated industry of oil and gas, the conservation bank of things like agriculture and agricultural producers, the conservation community and various government interests to
transact these market-based programs in order to keep the species off the list because we understand at the end of the day and by 2015 we have to produce as much food as we have total in the last of thousand years and it's not really an option to engage in conservation because it much like the food we produce is a societal demanded value. >> garrey over here actually one of our authors the question i have for you is your paper describes the challenge, the partnership of landowners working with federal, state agencies, conservation organizations, and one of the issues you've tackled of grizzly bears. and it is an interesting symbol if you will in many respects of the very discussion that we are having more broadly at this meeting and with the conservation leadership council. on the one hand, the grizzly is
a symbol of wild places and they are passionate, passionate for the guardianship of the bears can you talk about how you make that happen and overcome those deep divides and passions of the great symbol? >> thanks for being here today to tell the story how we address that issue. to the base and it is fair to say that we live in a fairly productive grizzly bear habitat environment. there are more grizzly bears per square mile in that particular area than anywhere in the country. so the question is how do you
live and work and play in that environment? this conflict came to a head in 2001 when a hunter was killed on the range and there are increasing conflicts as they continue to grow but that addresses the core health care issue from a lot of land owners and residents and iraq readers in the watershed. the way we address that issue is organized what we call the land owner group, these are traditional landowners and the watershed asks them for their prospective along with our public managers. this is an endangered species and fish and wildlife is in charge of this and it's a significant partner program the fish and wildlife service has that helps address these kinds of issues and so what they came up with through that conversation, and again, like today we are hoping that this will help extend these lessons learned from places like ourselves, and we can bring the
lessons back into the watershed. we developed a series of tools and partnerships that address those issues and these were land owner driven tools. we had to have partnerships with public agencies to address these issues and i want to emphasize these are volunteer senate based tools that address issues related to the conflict. the success is we have reduced the conflict by 96% with a grizzly bears in 2001 and the livestock. the three programs are the caucus pick up, we try to reduce. subsequently were also trying to remove what they call the boneyards. so attractive situations. a natural process of the loss occurs in the livestock operations and those are pulled off. those are attractive and they draw more animals and to those livestock operations. the second is fencing.
grizzly bears don't like electric fences. it's amazing that this big scary and all does not -- this isn't the kind of fence you test. utensil at -- test that sense it will knock you down so it's a very high intensity fence and the test these smart animals so once you put the fence up it is active. it's not a standing put it up and walk away from it. you have to maintain access and maintain this high intensity fence and that is the program that we came into a few years ago is what we call the of range writer program. the program in essence is a communication mechanism. there's an awareness peace, there is a presence on the ground they enabled in terms of getting out there on the ground and getting yourself if you will between where the bears and livestock are so the human presence helps but quite frankly the best thing the program does is that it will build
relationships and communications with landowners. producers are as you expect suspect of what the folks want to do. they're interested in creating and maintaining their livelihood and maintaining a part of their community. so what they don't want to do is not get access to information. so the program in cooperation with states and fish and wildlife service knows where the bares are and where it's a different kind of story for us but very actively engaged in building trust and relationships with landowners. a very huge part of the program. so the result is a huge acceptance of this program for the landowners because it is a voluntary incentive based program that reduced conflict with their livestock operations, hunters and other recreation certainly like it because it reduces conflict for those folks and long story short is that like this program here, it's about conversations, it's about sharing information and listening to what folks want to do in the land and implementing
programs that help them continue to be in production. thanks again very much. >> i want to follow-up and i am going to broaden this out to get people a sense of the complexities and also creativity. want to have a little more dialogue with our authors. garrey, so far we are all warm and fuzzy. the talk about what we are doing and about the, rebel cattlemen association coming together to work for the context of energy development. you have talked about that tough issue of grizzlies which have caused so much controversy yet here you are solving the problem. but what can't you do? the challenge has been around for 20 years. you've tackled a lot of issues. i've heard the chairman of your board talk about the eda 20 rule. we will leave the 20. what are tough to address and
why? >> probably the thing we haven't addressed is we have a variety of committees that address these issues and to emphasize again become from conversations with people in the community. the board sits around and says what you think of the problem? because of what people have said in the watershed in terms of what things need to be addressed. we have address water quality issues and have an irrigation program, the shared use in terms of drought response. the one thing we have not addressed is the water quality, it is a different animal if he will and i will characterize that in the words of david, fifth generation rancher, very why is, very good to listen to him and his family talk about their issues relative to maintain the lifestyle within the watershed. david describes it this way. when they come on my property with public resource can on my property and create a problem.
david managed the low program or the water quality program that looks at the water quality issues so david shared this committee that managed the program. now what you're going to do is these issues of water quality are emanating from my land. this is a very different issue than this problem coming on to the land that you are helping me address. so it is a contentious issue. we are going to continue to have conversations and we are sort of now going back into the communities and helping address that. the fear that david and others had is the way that we describe the work you get to shine a light on it ten times and it's not a very exacting as the problem is that it looks kind of exacting when you present it to your local population and that was david's big fear is people will say what we need is for dialogue, conversation, more understanding about how we can from a voluntary incentive base
address these issues. of course our fear is 15 years down the road if we do not address these issues, folks way downstream will come up and tell us our water quality issues are affecting their water and we would like to be in a position to respond to that in a voluntary incentive based way. >> i'm going to approach something you said, and i'm going to go to ben that this sitting here. he was assistant administrator of the environmental protection agency for a while, and he said solutions need to be local. or that is that local solutions really can be productive and constructive, and it of course waterways, one thinks of big ones like the mississippi river and the colorado river are all interconnected and indeed the flow through multiple states. how do you think about the nexus
between the local and the inner connectivity with the broad watershed. i'm going to get you to respond as well. if things are local, but the problems are bigger than purely local, how do you connect them? your thoughts since you work on water. >> do you want me to stand? >> yes, please. >> raise my right hand? [laughter] i want to say thank you for your great remarks. i think you selflessly moved into questions and you would have gotten a lot of applause for your remarks at the beginning. [applause] ibm used to being in this position, and it's one that is one of the most difficult. when our downstream impact, where the octetstring property owners or collaborators have to sacrifice in some way or
collaborate in some way that were the benefits removed, it does lead to finger-pointing, and i think that one of the most important principles, whether you are a non-regulatory consensus builder or a regulatory enforcement officials is don't lose sight of the need for local stakeholders to be brought in and committed to a solution and the way that you connect with their it is some other type of multi jurisdictional issue is usurp first focusing on the property owners, that have a stake in a matter and those that have some facilitators who have some credibility to help transcend the different bureaucratic and jurisdictional lines that get in
the way and you need different incentives and motivators but they don't have to be regulatory enforcement. so i think the key with her as an official or somebody in the ngo world where i am now is don't lose sight of the homeland the neighborhood, the community where part of the issues are rising and find some facilitators to transcend and help beyond just and enforcement office, facilitators to bring together upstream and downstream >> i'm going to go to bed now and get your thoughts on the nexus between the local and the regional national and how you stand up local voice and address issues that may go beyond that. i'm going to put on notice a couple people and done in the back and over to alex, one of
our council members. we see the same question on water quality bringing in some of gary's comments. if you are dealing with land owners and people in the agricultural world that are undergoing their practices, which may have associated with them some of these loadings' in the water how do you bring them in and address the challenges him -- and how does it work but before i get to that piece, local, regional, national? >> they are better at answering this question than i but the perfect example about all of the interaction between local, regional and state governments and federal government work in the chesapeake bay and gary mentioned his comments on the situation. >> total maximum daily for those of you not immersed in water
quality. >> the federal government has measured and set forth the total maximum daily load for every state going into watershed. however, in the chesapeake bay there is a federal mandate for reducing nutrients flowing into the bay and they have been lowered by a federal mandate as a target. the federal authority doesn't have any operational for the state. but they can set the standards, which they have done. the states have generated their own programs and policies to figure out ways to reduce that or the load of nutrients going into the chesapeake bay to each state has developed a program that is unique to the state. it's different than pennsylvania, maryland, but then the role is since it is a big
issue and not a state issue then what happens is the epa is an overseer of the state program, said the state programs are developed locally with local conditions and local operations, the epa says we can verify the nutrient productions, and we can be a facilitator to move those reductions were treated those reductions state to state because the different local programs, so we have a local program, federal setting the standards and then the federal government saying we will figure out a way so that the states can interact with their own problems, their own unique programs to solve the problem. >> secretary, secretary schafter introduced the chesapeake bay into this and you are right in the middle. virginia is engaged in that.
can you talk a little bit about that relationship and the role of local funds and va's perspective on engaging them but also if you reflect back to something garrey said, there are tensions and concerns by those agricultural actors, fear, concern about their economic livelihood, how does the state of virginia and under your leadership how do you think about addressing those and in ways consistent with some of the principles we are talking about? >> thanks, lynn. i'm someone not to put myself out cows and expert going back to chesapeake bay much of what we've talked about has been western oriented. the effort to clean the day has been a challenge for a number of
states in the east and part of that challenge frankly for the folks in here who are interested in finding sort of ways that we can improve the environment as well as to do it in a market-based way has been a challenge for all the states, even for the democratic lead states when we have an epa that comes down on each of those states in a very hard way. we specifically talk about agriculture. in my state the agriculture people on a voluntary basis has been enormously good, but they are doing it on a voluntary basis because they are afraid of the epa coming and implementing specific requirements for our group culture so we work very hard to stay ahead of the curb and keep agriculture engaged so that we don't, you know, essentially we are trying to protect them from the epa. the industry has been a great player. but i have been trying to do with the epa is get them to
focus on real metrics that show improvements in the day. so for us, it has been hell are the or easter is doing, how are the crab's doing, how can we actually measure specific environmental indicators that show that it's improving? so we spend an awful lot of time measuring those kind of things as sort of sarah gets -- surrogates to water quality and that is our point to show them we are doing everything we can and virginia to achieve the deal. >> you raised metrics and this is one of the issues that a lot of folks concerned about market approaches and to putting the recovery that you mentioned are concerned about with a minute how we know what we are getting, and how do you go about establishing those metrics? i'm going to turn back to terrie
and get your response to this. again, one of the resistance to some of these efforts have been how do you measure this stuff and i want to tell a little story about bill first, the epa administrator. a long time ago at the advent of the epa and even before it, she was the early environmental protection administrator of the state i believe it was indiana. he tells a story about their inability to measure air quality and that that in fact is why they didn't use the performance based approach that said how clean are we getting by doing things? they didn't have to measure it. the best measurement was something they called a destin bucket they put it on the roof and salles but fell in. he tells that story because he says that is partly why we ended up with some of the prescriptive regulations we have that say you have to use the smokehouse rubber and so forth.
in some ways as we get to this stuff, we are a little bit in that situation. how do you measure progress? how do you know when the species is doing better? do you measure the length of the grass with a number of species, how you get an agreement on a knowing when you have achieved, particularly when it is so complex. so can you address that and then i'm going to go to alex and jeff has a comment. >> well, the metric is important and i think it is important for a very fundamental reason. it's about trust. as we talk about outcome based conservation, i think that is everybody's conservator, be at the regulator, and the metric is a piece that goes into that equation as kind of standardized that discussion and what we found with landowners and how we connected the value of the metric is that it really brings into the equation the notion of
connecting the economy and conservation together. and that is where the metric allows that to happen through transparency. but you have to bring them back to a market-based approach in order to get implementation. so i think metrics are very important but they also have to be developed in a transparent way that benefits whenever you are trying to conserve. otherwise you will lose that trusten the system. >> i.c.e. greg. you had to hand out to say something to read and then i want to go to alex, the council of conservation leadership to talk about this issue because i know he's worked on it. >> thanks, lynn and everybody for what you're doing. i think it is fascinating and overdue. i want to observe that what i'm hearing and what you all are saying about the difficulty to these national policy programs
is i think between gerient terrie it sounds like it goes on to something fairly simple, which is the individuals, whether they belonged to the local community or not need a better way and they have a better way to assert their interest in producing the conservation, then we can get more conservation done. so, in the home of the river that runs through eight not really demonstrates why the interior is also important to people, not what they are talking funny -- for this microphone isn't working. >> i think we have some dynamic microphones here. spec what they've done, this one doesn't look as good. there we go with the have done is organized a little council of their own to figure this out when it needs to be figured out by the negotiations and that way
they are better able to assert their interests. where we have been able to develop the market-based approaches like an coloradan and others, where you are able to measure the value, you can create an actual transaction, so just like a consumer, you can assert yourself by what you pay for or what you sell. i hope i'm on track here but it sounds like that is the basic idea is if people can better assert their interest in producing conservation personally, through a company or through the community, then you get more conservation done. tell me if i'm wrong. >> if you can comment on that question, we have together a couple of threads. garrey says the water quality issues are tough for us because, what was it, we've met the enemy and it is us.
it's a little tough to point the finger at yourself and say i am the do were here and i need to do something differently. on the other hand, we have dug in the back saying we have sustained our work on these water quality issues and they are coming together to be on the other hand, she said but looming in the back is this little letter we are concerned about. from all the work that you have done with farmers, and i know that you have worked a lot with them, how do you get them engaged? is it that threat or is there a broad motivation? are their benefits to them beyond perhaps avoiding regulation is what brings folks together because ultimately some of the ideas the secretary norton and secretary schafter and the council are talking about may require more than that fear of regulation. some other kind of motivation to get them at the table. so, alex.
>> i talk about culture and some conflict and some opportunities that i see where we can overcome those conflicts and deliver some improved conservation outcomes, more cost effectively, and i think that is one of the things the conservatives need to do to be a voice for improving the performance of comes from investments. so, just a quick story. i'm not a farmer. my family has a farm. i grew up on a farm in the shenandoah valley, virginia. we have had that farm for 250 years. we were meeting 15 years ago, ten years ago, a long time ago, and lynn talked about it on the map of the environmental community had circled and said this piece of land isn't protected. wait a minute, that's my land. and it resonated with me. we have that same piece of land for 250 years. it's been occupied by invading armies twice. we attended with firearms, with blood twice to lead some to say
that it isn't protected is offensive to me. there's been two major environmental damages in my lifetime. when i was 5-years-old and the federal government built the interstate highway through our prime habitat where we hunted deer and had endangered species. it probably couldn't happen today. when i was a teenager, there was a flood, and the federal government ran as bulldozers right up through the farm. we now have a blue ribbon fishery, not a blue ribbon trout fishery. that made me think differently that maybe we needed to think about how do we empower the environmental what comes differently? one of the things we've done is we have said thou shall not pollute. it's a great thing to do. but we haven't ended those kind
of opportunities. so back to farms. we produce apples on our farm. you know, we like apples, we do lots of things with our apples, it's part of our culture but what we love is the farm and the land. and when we have a conflict between the creation of opportunity and the ability to pass the farm on to the next generation, an environmental lout come that is a problem. well, one of the things i think we have to do to put it differently, we produce apples on the farm and in the end i don't care about apples or the farm. if i can make a living producing clean water, endangered species, things that are scarce and rare i forget how to do it now but it puzzled me that if you have an endangered species on your property that is an economic burden. it puzzles me that you have
water that runs off your farm that is an economic burden. instead, we ought to incentivize the production of those endangered species. we ought to incentivize the production of clean water, abundant resources, the things that are scarce. we have great incentives establish with food. we are going to have to double the amount of food in the next few years. right now is a great time to be farmer but we are missing the opportunity to create this kind of incentives for the production of environmental goods and services. and lynn coming your description i think is great. we took the easy steps 20, 30, 50 years ago, to say thou shall not pollute. but we didn't have a way to measure the outcomes. of the environmental protection. today that's different. when he will get a farmer flat as this floor, the farmer probably has a gps on their
tractor, on their columbine, gps on their fertilizer applicator, and they know where to put the input to maximize the economic outcomes for that. we have completely missed the boat in the environmental field. and if we start to say how do we investor. conservation and put where they are going to have a better outcome that is going to revolutionize the conservation production. so, whether it is working with folks like ben rebels to help the epa not just on a regulatory solution but how we build a culture of using incentives and markets to improve conservation outcomes, working with folks like brandt to figure out how to get the public owned water treatment plant is to invest in more efficient ways to produce water quality we have to get the sectors talking to each other. and we have got to create the environment as an opportunity
rather than an impediment for the future of the family farms and municipal budgets to the estimate i'm going to open a to questions, but first, not unless secretary norton authors year, secretaries norton, you said in your remarks that much of the conservation leadership council and its principals really aligned with your vision of the record of conservation that you articulated when you were at the interior department. with that vision of course comes challenges, and i would like you to talk a little bit about your experiences and those years and have the vision, have some leadership capacity to try to make it happen. but what did you see as the challenges in many ways those are challenges that these policies face more broadly whatever the venue.
spec when you are talking about cooperative conservation projects, you start with an area of land that is managed by a federal government employees and those people have the idea that this is their responsibility, this is their land. the need to figure out what ought to be managed. they have statutory mandates committee of congress telling them that they ought to be doing things in a certain way. they have the environmental community saying we have to protect this. and so the usual approach is just to say okay we will get some public comments, but we the federal government need to decide what we are going to do. and it really takes a lot of work to break out of that mind set. and to have federal employees reach out to local communities, have some of the people in the local communities quit doing more with each other and sit
down and start talking. we found countless examples of people who started down that approach for a very small issue and found that they could actually talk to each other and work out their problems. there was one of our managers working with a new conservation area, newly established. and they needed to figure out what areas should be put into wilderness and what areas should be available for recreation. the hikers versus the people but wanted to ride horses, which wasn't very pleasant for the hikers as they go down the trail later on. the mountain bikers who again or not that compatible. we had a lot of different interests. when the land manager finally got everybody together and they were able to say all right, let's do this over here and that over there and work out a
solution, suddenly it made the federal officials's ta easier as well as producing a better outcome. and so, there are so many examples, but it takes a lot of communication to take those inspirational stories and to make that available to people so that they could learn. and that i think is a part of what we are talking about here. it's not just with land management, it applies to many other types of environmental issues. once you find those success stories, make an example so that other people can see them. the word starts getting out in those kind of approaches can be used to effectively provide environmental benefits and many other places. >> let me open this up to wide comments and by all means please bring this back into the city if you have those kinds of issues. but i am also going to sort of
prada you a little that. this far the discussion has been very, very gentle, and we've talked at collaboration, this potential intersection of federal, state, local, the ability to work compatible the with the endangered species act and yet none the less introduce these markets. if i may conservative out in the audience i might say wait a minute. we are still talking a lot about publicly and a lot about regulation. where is the private sector in all of this or are there actually some voluntary solutions? so if you have lines by all means, introduce them. but you don't need to go that pathway. if you have questions or secretary speed, psychiatry schafter or the council members that are here -- secretaries schafter or that council members
here. you can always get called on. yes. >> ..
>> i think the answer to the question mark is what -- where are we going with this and how do you deal with it? the answer, i believe, is hunger. the reality is we have a growing population across the world. we have a declining crop yield situation all over so the trajectory of declining food production and increased population is just not going well. as people get hungry, they develop food riots or try to seek food in government anarchy often results. i believe that what we're seeing in the global market forces today is as we deal with that issue, the important values that the united states of america can put on the table come to bear, the values, i think, of how we
treat the land, how we treat the people. what's happening in some countries is because we are not able to export technology capabilities with equipment, with seed production, with water regimens, fertilizer regimes, we are not able to come countries with our expertise to increase food production so in the effort of hungry people, some countries get in and rape the land and exploit the people for the short term gain of food production. we can't allow that to continue to happen, and as hungry people continue to cause problems, we very much node to be able to export our capabilities for food production, and i think that where we will change the face of being able to export those abilities where governments are
resissing, and when government want control, when they don't want the united states, quote, interference, where they restrict crop, ways of growing crops, that changes when people are hungry. we started to see that move in 2008 during the high commodity prices and people couldn't afford the issue, but, you know, 5 million kids a year die because they don't have enough food in this world, and we, in the united states of america, i think, have the opportunity to promote the good stewardship of the land in the productive capacity of our natural resources to feed people. it's going to come from people getting hungry. >> i'm going to follow this thread and go to three people. on notice here, glenn with nature conservancy who operates worldwide and often at that intersection of agriculture and conservation, indeed, the mission being right at that intersection, get your perspective on how you address
or are thinking about addressing those pressures as demand for food expands. then i want to go to dale moore, with the farm pure -- bureau now, and then frank because i know he -- went to brazil together, and we met with ranchers down in brazil including assistance farmers, and, really, looking there at how brazil is trying to manage that intersection of agriculture production on the one hand and protecting its prop call forests. glen, let me start with you. >> [inaudible] >> yeah, ag and food and, you know, how they think about that, and how people are hungry. how do you transcend that and get them food, but not rape and pillage the land? >> lynn, thank you, and congratulations to you on the council on really a spectacular event and initiative overall,
and the papers are good and the program is good. thank you for bringing us together and throwing the question our way. nature conservancy, you know generally what we do. we are a global organization, and agriculture is at the top of the agenda over the last couple years. it's what we call the global priorities we are working on, and that's here across the united states and across other countries around the world, and we come at it from the standpoint of our long years of working with farmers and ranchers and other agricultural producers so i think the secretary framed it well. we're coming at it from the stand point of how do we work with land owners whether they are in iowa or in brazil to sustainably intensify their production. now, that's a mouthful so i'll unpack that just briefly. it's really about how do you produce more on the same agricultural footprint with fewer inputs of whether it's
water, fertilizers, or crop protection. we come at it from the stand point of how do we help those producers become more productive, raise their productivity, increase their yield, increase their income while reducing the environmental impact of the growing production. we've had great experience in brazil with some very large soy farms and cattle ranches, as well as great experience here in the united states also with the range of farming and ranching practices. when you come at it from the stand point of how do you help that land owner, that producer, large or small producer, become more productive and reduce environmental impacts to the point alex made, we see great potential and that's great impact at a local level. the challenge we're thinking about hard, and i was thinking about formlating the question, and now that i have the microphone, i'll flow it out to the room. we know the approach with work,
but the challenges are growing very fast. we heard the demand for food doublesly 20250. the way that food is produced today has environmental impact. we've got to move very fast to sustainably intensify and help producers produce more with less and reduce the environmental footprint. how do we scale practices faster than they have been able to scale to date? some form of policy incentive is needed. what is the right producer friendly approach to get you results faster than we get them today? that's the challenge for all of us. we know the approaches can work. how do you scale them to really solve the extent of the environmental and economic challenges? >> and, glen, keep standing, i have another question before i go to dale. i know this picks on up something alex said, saying, wow, you know, i like apples, but i'd be happy to -- to invest
in species protection and water protection on the farm if there's a market for it. i know tnc worked, for example, in ecuador, i believe it's with the city, and bring us back to the city or the link between city and countryside in some payments for -- this is very jar begin, but payments for nature if you will, where the city needs water, the countryside has it, and just tell a little bit about that, and does it fit into this discussion about how to give opportunities to farmers, but ones that are commerce with the environmental protection. >> we have an idea from new york city to improve water quality and brought that idea to latin america, starting in ecuador, and now in 30 cities across latin america to create water funds pooling resources from
local water countries, hydroelectric facilities, bottling companies that need reliability and clean water and helping invest resources in the upper water shed. we are helping those local farmers become water producers as well as agricultural producer. it's beginning to work. we are still humble, trying to measure to the point about met tricks, measure the outcomes in terms of water quality, but the mechanism works. it really gets that going between the users of the water, the users of the resource, and the producers of the water, and we're excited about it. we are bringing it back to the u.s. in the southwest, for example, where those areas will be the most water stressed in the coming decade. >> thanks, glen. so, dale, the larger question, environment, agriculture, worldwide, thoughts? >> you do this whole teacher thing well, lynn.
>> by the way, my daughter says my arms are connected to my mouth and fling them around, and my mouth doesn't work. that explains that part. >> my mother was my 6th, 7th, and 8th english, math, and science teacher. i approach this with great trepidation knowing you are a teacher. [laughter] one of the challenges, throw a little bit of, you know, ice water into the discussion, if you will, we see these discussions go on and on. you know, the collaborative solutions, sit down and work together, and, you know, embrace that incentive based approach to reach solutions. the trust factor, a pragmatic skepticism at times when folks want to enter into these discussions is that we never seem to feel like we in agriculture, the boots on the ground folks, say we never feel like we get credit for the things we do. we see the challenges, whether it's producing for a troubled
and hungry world, that recognition tends to take a backseat to the fact that there are a number of folks, many of whom are around this town that really don't want a solution so much as they want the issue. when we start getting close to, you know, resolving one of these issues, then we find, you know, whether it's an individual farmer or rancher or life stock producer, that gets made the poster child of, you know, an attack. we're encouraged, and we love to engage in these kinds of dialogues, but i'm curious as to how both, you know, the clc, you know, collectively and individually, approaches as we have, i know, two former cabinet firms, two former state officials, and doug in the corner there, and when you have to sit down and work out a solution and then help maintain that fire wall to protect, you know, a farmer or rancher's
ability to make some real progress towards, you know, these types of goals that we set forth, and at the same time, recognize them in a way that helps educate the public across the board that we are making progress, we are making success, and don't forget to pat the farmer or rancher living next to you for the work that they are doing. >> secretary, do you want to reflect on that? >> well, yes. [laughter] i do. i think, i think dale brings up a perfect example of the trust issue, and, again, back to chez peak bay, when we went to the pennsylvania farm bureau and said here's a program that can reduce nitrogen runoff going into the water shed from the
agriculture community. we think this is a great solution because the municipal waste water treatment plants just complain that the agriculture's not doing enough. this is a good solution. it's voluntary, works well, and the farm bureau in pennsylvania was very nervous about that, very -- they vibrated over the fact that it might work because they said if this works, then the epa or the federal government or legislate comes in and makes us all do it increasing the cost of my production, cost of food goes up, the world disappears as we know it, so it was -- it took a period of more than one year, almost two years, to work with the farm bureau to understand that if a 25 million pound reduction of nitrogen is allocated to agriculture in pennsylvania, and in one operation alone you can remove
two million pounds of nitrogen, and for a couple handfuls of large operations, you can remove the require amount of nitrogen flowing into the bay. you meet all the guidelines and the pressure is off all the small farmers and municipalities that deal with it on a smaller basis so it was a long trail, but that timely, the pennsylvania farm bureau said we agree, and we support the project, but the initial reaction was we do not want this to be successful because if it is, we're all going to be in trouble, and now, working through the process, it makes sense for the farm bureau to climb on board so that the effort to understand how transparent, honest measure.